Jump to content

Talk:Gun laws in the United States by state/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

A polarizing issue

this issue is reallly interesting This article is clearly biased with regard to a polarizing issue in this nation. Is not up to the standards of Wikipedia. Most importantly, it doesn't even address the subject matter implied by its caption, i.e., the current state of gun-control law in California. It appears to consist of nothing more than an argument in support of assault weapons in California. Until someone can do better this article should be deleted. It tarnishes the fine reputation of Wikipedia.

B.S. You're clearly the one with the agenda. --70.160.160.175 10:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually the page simply states the facts. It even goes so far as to mention that BOTH sides of the issue within the state of California are in agreement that the laws need to be adjusted. It looks to me like the original complaint to this article was in fact made by somebody with their own agenda. Take a look at FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistic report there, buddy. Assault weapons are used in less than 1% of firearm crime. By the way, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics report of Sep. 2003, regarding crime between 1993 and 2001, only 10% of ALL violent crime involves firearms of any kind. Do the world a favor and don't speak your ignorance. Do some research, find the facts, then open your mouth.

I Agree

Automatic Weapons

The states that prohibit the private ownership of fully-automatic weapons are: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Washington (State). Furthermore, the District of Columbia prohibits such weapons.

This is according to a firearms manufacturer that routinely sells NFA full-auto guns that are transferrable to private citizens.

http://vectorarms.com/shop/index.php?main_page=page&id=8&chapter=0&zenid=6464327ae8f5606c84f932625883b681

OhioGuy2007 04:21 19 December 2007


It says there are seven states that ban automatic weapons, what are these states, and what are the laws on owning automatics in other states?

Are you referring to fully automatic firearms (NFA type) (i.e. "machine gun")? In general, if a state regulates owning NFA weapons, they follow the federal government guidelines (i.e. must have local LEO approval, must have the tax stamp, must have transfer through Class III dealer, must have registration). Izaakb 15:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The question asked is simply too ignorant to respond to effectively. Haizum 20:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Haizum, I don't think that kind of reply is in good faith.. Not everyone has enough information to ask in the "proper way", so maybe lighten up? Izaakb 20:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
You don't think, you assume. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I will assume good faith and assume that you are trying, how Never incompetently, to be helpful in some way by calling another person's question "ignorant" but I cannot for the life of me determine how it is helpful.Izaakb 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
You don't have to assume that I'm trying to be helpful, you just have to assume. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

== the states are clearly as follows, new york, new jersey, illinois, kansas, and alaska ==

My humble suggestion is as follows: remove the phrase "gun control" from any article where it is not either a proper noun (i.e. Gun Control Act) or specifically concerning that phrase (i.e. the phrase "gun control" was first used in the year 19xx by Sen. Foo...)

            • It is inconcievable that one would refer to a law/act/statute/ordinance by anything other than the accepted and widely understood terms society has labelled them with. The above appears to be a non-issue. Having read the article, I can't find fault with it, except the last one, below (- clayndwoods)

Replace it with "firearms law/laws." This term is perfectly neutral. I (and probably quite a few others) dispute the neutrality of "gun control." However, there is no bias whatsoever to the term "firearms law."

In addition, "gun control" is also unclear. It has a fairly specific meaning in politics, yes, but as that old bumper sticker tells us, it's also how steadily you hold your weapon. Ditch it and go with the 100% neutral "firearms law." Paul 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to remove the term "gun control" on non-neutrality grounds, then arguably the term "gun rights" should be removed for the same reason - it implies that there exists a human right to own guns, a position which not everyone would accept. However, although both this term and "gun control" contain subconscious biases, I would argue that it's best simply to keep them as they are, as they represent clear and coherent summaries of the two main positions on the issue.
No, if the conversation is held within the context of the United States (which this topic requires), then the term "gun rights" implies that there exists a Constitutional right to own guns, a position which everyone must accept.
"it implies that there exists a human right to own guns"Which is why it is in the bill of rights no?--Conor Fallon (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing States

This article clearly does not address the subject implied by its title - i.e. a survey of gun-related laws in the 50 states of the US. Currently more than 80% of the article is about one state, and 47 states do not get any mention (okay, 46, if you include the sentence about Chicago in the California section). If the article is to be kept, I would rename it something like "Firearms laws of California", and put the New York/Vermont information in a section entitled "Comparison with other states". Better still, someone with appropriate expertise should write a proper article comparing laws in all 50 states. The other articles entitled "shall issue", "may issue", "no-issue" and "unrestricted" could be merged into this expanded article. 24.136.9.111 10:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The other states are now added, I like the idea of having those comparison boxes per-state, perhaps that would address the "Comparison with other states"/shall-issue/may-issue concern? It would also me nice (albiet, a bit redundant) to have reciprocity (for permits) per state, like at packing.org --Osndok 23:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


Pennsylvania is missing. random wikipedia reader March 2008

Feel free to add it. The larger sections really should be split off into their own articles. Is there a template we can use to display the normal information for each state, like in the Traveler's Guide? - Denimadept (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wording/etc

These laws control the manufacture and distribution of certain small arms, specifically, guns. To simplify, we use the phrase "gun control", because it is, indeed accurate. Now WTF is the problem?

Alaska/'Vermont Carry', if Alaska was the first, why is it called 'Vermont Carry'? --156.26.5.221 20:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Alaska adopted laws that mimicked Vermont's already existing laws. Did my edit make the idea clearer? Kythri 04:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the section on New York, it says:

"New York is a particularly interesting case, because New York separates all of New England from the bulk of the United States. New York laws thus have a severe impact on law-abiding citizens who wish to travel to and from New England by land."

This seems inaccurate. Federal "peaceable journey" laws would seem to allow transport THROUGH the State of New York, provided that the posession of arms was legal in both the origination and destination of the journey.

See: http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/FederalGunLaws.aspx?ID=59 And: http://www.nraila.org/images/DOJltrTSA.pdf

Kythri 05:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope. NY regularly arrests even airline passengers with packed handguns stored properly by Federal guidelines who originally were flying OVER NY, but who somehow wind up in NY due to plane malfunctions, bad weather, or whatever, forcing the plane to have to land. What should be by Federal law doesn't agree with what has been happening. Yaf 05:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. From the main article on Illinois There is no state preemption of firearm laws with the result that some localities, most notably Chicago and the near suburbs, have outright banned ownership of handguns. Among other things, lack of preemption makes it difficult to travel throughout Illinois with a firearm while being sure that no laws are being broken. So the term we are looking for is "preemption;" we are also looking for the ACLU to uphold Federal law over a blatant violation of it by a rogue state. Haizum 06:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
New York City no longer harasses travelers in airports over properly stored handguns. The Port Authority (PANYNJ) received a letter from the USAG's office in 2002 (?) regarding the McClure-Volkmer provisions of FOPA, and the harassment has ceased. Izaakb 17:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

POV

Although the law's purpose is to try to make California a safer place That's completely biased. Haizum 16:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Using slippery slope logic Yet another ignorant and biased comment. Haizum 16:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried some more neutral wording on the two things you mention above. See what you think. Littleman TAMU 17:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The section on Washington state does not clearly explain what Castle Doctrine is. In fact, it's a complete misrepresentation. Haizum 16:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is Virginia on this list but not Maryland? Maryland is a complete joke in terms of crime and gun violence, yet it has some of the strictest laws in the country...and it was still a joke even before it enacted those laws. Haizum 16:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Because nobody has written it yet. If you add a NPOV section on it, you should. Wodan
I am currently not disputing the neutrality of the article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 17:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Section on Oregon seems biased by using information from a ventiment pro-gun lobby. Currently, the lobby is suing to allow a Medford teacher to carry a concealed weapon inside a high school classroom. If you could get your information from another source, that would be better. Dunstvangeet 16:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggested changes to this page

I suggest the following:

  • Change the name to "Gun (Firearm) laws in the United States (by state)". This covers any and all types of gun laws, whether they are "control" oriented or otherwise.
  • Each state section to be represented in this manner:
  1. Brief description or reference to the specific statutes regarding the state's gun laws
  2. Subsections dealing with purchase laws, possession laws, and carry laws
  3. Subsection for specific additional restrictions or laws (i.e. some states have towns that require ownership, others have state-wide or city-level restrictions such as New York City's or California's "Assault Weapon Ban")
  4. Elimination of "Issues" subsections -- stick to demonstrable references. If there have been prominent lawsuits against the state's laws, that would be relevant (i.e. the Lockyer lawsuits in California or conversely, the New York City suits against manufacturers).
  5. Elimination of things like crime statistics or reports or "Gun control issues" type things. This is not the page for that, there are plenty of others.

What say all of you?

Izaakb (Reply to my suggestion here) 18:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I plan to make these changes in the next few weeks unless someone has a serious objection. I will be compiling the information and rely on statute cites from FindLaw Izaakb 15:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As is, the article is decent - it focuses heavily on California and New York, but that is unsurprising given the rather invasive nature of gun control laws in those states. However, we should definately expand on other states in this section, even if there isn't as much to talk about - gun control in Florida or Utah, for example. 209.129.117.2 00:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe that changing the title as you propose would certainly be more accurate, as it is not just about gun control but is rather about Gun (Firearm) Laws. I also believe your other proposed changes are a good idea, too. Yaf 01:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Any law that is not the 2nd Amendment itself, and the Federal laws surrounding it is inherently gun control because said law would therefore be a state law which then either mandates further restrictions not sanctioned by a representative Federal government, or is in contradiction with some aspect of Federal law and is also not sanctioned by a representative Federal government. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think these are useful comments. Haizum. I understand you feel strongly about gun control. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an opinion board and while your POV has a lot of adherents, whether or not other laws are valid in your opinion isn't the point. They are laws and they are enforced for better or for worse. There are also plenty of Wiki articles which describe the phenomena of gun control/gun rights in the USA. I think a page which has verifiable, statutory-related review of state gun laws would be a good thing as a reference, rather than simply discounting the 20,000+ gun laws on the books. Also, we can discuss Federalism and your theory of how comity and Federal supremacy is supposed to work, but for the purpose of this article, how about sticking to the statutory reality?
I am working on a template which could be used for each state. I found the NRA's "gun laws by state" as a good model (just for formatting) and I think most people, regardless of how they feel about gun rights/gun control can agree it would be useful. http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/ If you click on a state, it opens a PDF file with a printable flyer. It has a table at the top of basic relevant laws (i.e. "permit to purchase, registration, licensing, permit to carry" etc) I can post a suggested template and we can go from there. Izaakb 14:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
A personal attack would feel very good in response to your unwarranted condescension - perhaps I'll save it for later, but I digress. The fact of the matter is, you aren't creating an article about "gun laws", no, you are writing about gun control. To write a "gun laws" article that summarizes the laws on the books "for better or for worse," one would have to visit the respective website of the respective state and find the respective codes that are relevant to "gun laws." However, what you have done is taken material from pro-gun lobbying elements and are attempting to erase the obvious implication of the collective compilation - that said laws are designed as gun control. Ergo, you lost the argument a long time ago. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
From the article:
  • Many US states have legislated their own gun control laws
  • The state level bans vary significantly in their form, content, and level of restriction.
  • California has some of the strictest gun control laws
  • has led to many restrictions on semi-automatic firearms.
  • a lengthy list of specific firearms that are banned by name
  • banned by characteristic
  • a total ban on the manufacture, sale, transfer or distribution of firearms or ammunition in San Francisco
  • Handgun owners in San Francisco must turn over their handguns
  • Illinois has some of the most restrictive firearm laws in the country.
  • have outright banned ownership of handguns.
  • Maryland tightly restricts
  • Individuals [] must produce documentation of death threats...even then, permits have been denied in some cases.
  • first get a purchase permit and then get a license for a shotgun or a rifle.
  • Private sales are required to be registered with the state.
  • New York State has a ban
  • New York's laws are not uniform throughout the state.
  • New York City is known for having some of the strictest gun laws in the country.
  • Vermont is notable in that it has no gun control laws
  • concealed carry by ordinary citizens is still illegal.
...and yet you claim that this article isn't about bans, resitrictions, prohibitions, and controls; so it should be named otherwise. Please recuse yourself from this discussion. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
malum in se and malum prohibitum also play a role in this discussion. Laws that restrict gun posession based on age (not letting 9 year olds buy shotguns) or the firepower of the weapon (not letting Joe Average posess a 20mm Vulcan Cannon) could be presented as laws that are malum in se, whereas laws that arbitrarily control gun ownership based on appearance or locality are clearly malum prohibitum. Note that most, if not all of the state laws mentioned in this article could be classified as malum prohibitum, but I'm being generous for the moment. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Haizum, first off, I want you to understand there was no condescension. I feel your response isn't really replying to what I was offering to do at all. My point is simply that the article is not well written and is suffering from a great deal of scatter-shot POV issues -- I feel you are trying to pontificate the "μολὼν λαβέ" point of view on Wikipedia rather than simply share information, which is the point here. Anyhow, when they do "molon labe" what are you going to do about it? Write a Wikipedia article? Come now. There is a time and a place and Wikipedia isn't it. Read between the lines. Izaakb 02:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The next infraction, be it a lack of AGF or ad hominem attacking my signature, will result in an ANI report. Since you wisely saved yourself a lot of time by not attempting to rebut overwhelming evidence that this article is about Gun Control, poorly written as it may be, we'll consider the discussion surrounding the title settled.
If you would like to summarize "gun laws" by state without mentioning gun control, feel free to start another article with .gov resources as opposed to, say, Packing.org and the NRA/NRAILA. I'll be very interested to see how you plan to overlook the glaring differences in "gun laws" between New York and Vermont in such an article. Have fun with that. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
A re-write to remove the present scattershot approach presented in this article seems worthwhile. My vote still stands, favoring the renaming of the article and also improving its quality. Giving undue weight to gun control laws regarding continuations of the Assault Weapon Ban -- that apply only in a few states (CA, IL, NY, MA, and DC) -- is clearly POV, as the federal assault weapons ban sunsetted across the rest of the nation in 2004. Describing firearm laws in 45 states and 5 gun control states as Gun control by State is clearly POV. Yaf 02:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what your vote is, and it doesn't matter what my vote is. The article was started as Gun Control, and was written as such. If you have a problem with POV, then fix it. If you have a problem with "poor writing," then fix it. Having an unrepresentative majority bogart the article title is completely unacceptable. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"I suggest that this article be renamed 'State Laws' because it covers state laws in addition to gun laws."--Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Have started to fix the POV problems with the article per your suggestion. I feel this is better than just "barking on the discussion page" about all the issues and doing nothing to improve the article. Yaf 03:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"California has some of the strictest firearm laws of the United States," what a brilliant edit! No longer will anyone think this article is about Gun Control. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Haizum, I can type μολὼν λαβέ without "making fun" of your signature. Infraction?? What are you talking about?? Go ahead and report all you like, be my guest. I am absolutely not trying to escalate this, ok? I can also type other things in Greek like Πρέπει να χαλαρώσετε. I am sorry that you seem to feel I am not assuming good faith, I felt the same about your A personal attack would feel very good in response to your unwarranted condescension comment. My point is simply this: This article stinks as it is. The fact that I chose to ignore your list of comments doesn't mean that I don't have anything to say about them -- let's agree they all are bad edits and remove them all. And as far as my choice of references, I stated above I would use publicly available sources like Findlaw. Izaakb 04:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you are clearly stating your intent to sanction the glossing over of facts. The word ban appears countless times in this article, and for good reason; many a state and locality has a gun ban of some sort - it's the law. A quick dictionary.com definition of ban yeilds, to prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict, yet you (and someone else) refuse to accept that a ban is a restriction and that the title and content clearly represent an article regarding Gun Control, not a collage of "gun laws." The proper course of action would have been to remove the laws that are malum in se whilst keeping those that are malum prohibitum, that is, those that are widely accepted as controlling measures accepted as law only because they are law. This has not been done in the slightest. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Giving undue weight to gun control laws regarding continuations of the Assault Weapon Ban -- that apply only in a few states (CA, IL, NY, MA, and DC) -- is clearly POV, as the federal assault weapons ban sunsetted across the rest of the nation in 2004. Describing firearm laws in 45 states and 5 gun control states as Gun control by State is clearly POV. Yaf 04:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't even know where to begin with this sort of comment. Just because the AWB expired, doesn't mean that the 5 states that still adhere to it's guidelines are the only states/localities that have gun control laws. San Franciso currently has an outright ban, was that part of the AWB guidelines? Answer: No. I am the resident expert. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The level of gun control also doesn't exclusively deal with the provisions of the expired AWB. The issuance of concealed carry permits, places off-limits, # of purchases per month, car travel, gun registration, etc all have to do with gun control. Virginia, one of the most gun-friendly states has:
  • One gun a month rules
  • Rules regarding open carry firearm restrictions
  • General College Carry Restrictions Offical Attorney General Opinion
  • Gun Free School Zone act, CHP holders are allowed to have guns on school grounds in their personal vehicles as long as they stay in the car
  • Ban regarding firearms in VA General Assembly.
So, your premise of "undue weight" is completely misguided; the AWB is only a facet. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 05:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Haizum, while you may have a lot of information about gun law, making comments like I am the resident expert and your general attitude towards others (i.e. declaring the "discussion settled") comes across as combative. Wikipedia is built by concensus and you may not declare a discussion settled, no matter how convinced you are of it. Others disagree. If you are a resident expert as you merely claim, then how about guiding, rather than bullying, to make your points, ok? Can someone please state what qualifications make one a "resident expert" in firearms law / gun control laws? Above, I listed how I think the article should be structured. How about proposing your own list or amending mine? That would give you more credibility as an expert. It seems everyone except you feels the article should be re-written -- how about suggesting rather than criticising?Izaakb 14:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The tag requests that an expert be involved, and though I am not the be all and end all, I am the resident expert on a relative basis. To further my position, I would like to state a few simple matters of fact:

Without citing policy, it stands to reason that the intent of the creator was to start a "Gun Control by State" article to expand upond the dominant article, Gun_politics_in_the_United_States. It also appears that the article did not face deletion in its original form. Because the article satisfied any and all initial litmus tests, I believe we are obligated to work on the article in a fashion compliant with the original template - "Gun Control by State." If there exists in the article laws that are not exclusive to gun control, and are more so general "gun laws," then clearly those laws are nonessential and distracting from both the intent of the creator, and the guidelines of the template. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that's better.
  • The article was started as a Gun Control article.

I think this is relevant, but not binding. But we should certainly give weight to it.

  • The article contained laws specific and exclusive to gun control.

Gun laws by definition nowadays are gun control, except arguably for the handful of municipalities which require gun ownership, don't you think?

That is why I brought up malum in se and malum prohibitum. I don't think prohibiting felons on parole from owning firearms is necessarily "gun control," nor do I think prohibiting lawful Joe Average from owning an M1_Abrams is "gun control." Both are based on sound public safety concerns, not arbitrary and debatable restrictions. So, yes, I agree. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The article also contained laws not specific and exclusive to gun control.

That is what prompted my interest in a refocus.

Exactly, a refocus - which would suggest removing content (laws) that were not exclusive to gun control. Broadening the article title did not seem like an attempt to refocus. The former option seems a lot more obvious (to me at least), and a lot less controversial. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the most compelling. That this article is a sub to another which discusses politics is very relevant.

Indeed. The phrase "gun control" has deliberately been removed from this article, yet the "Gun Control" subsections of Gun_politics_in_the_United_States have not been touched and there is a link to this page in the "Gun control laws" subsection. This page should conform to the logical procession of subsections and their respective links. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I still think that a rewrite whereby each state section has a somewhat-standard format would be useful, perhaps a table with a consistent descriptive (i.e. "permit required to purchase handguns/longarms? permit required to carry concealed/open? etc) that would make glancing at the article more useful -- that was my comment about using the NRA-ILA's page format (or pick your favorite table-maker). Izaakb 23:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
When I first saw this article, undue weight was given to gun control laws in relatively gun friendly states. For example, Virginia's laws were presented in full, but Maryland (one of the most restrictive states) was not even mentioned. Naturally I was appalled and called for a complete rewrite for the sake of NPOV. The result has been completely backwards:
If California, Maryland, DC, New Jersy, and others want to have the most pervasive, invasive, and restrictive gun control laws of their own volition, then it is not POV when a Gun Control article has more content regarding their respective gun control laws - that's just being accurate. As long as the article covers each state's gun control laws (aside from Federal laws), then there should be no problem with regards to POV. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Haizum, I think you've finally made your point and I agree with you. Perhaps if you'd said this up front it would have taken less hassle? My idea was partly to create a survey for each state, rather than selective ones which I feel is a POV problem as you've pointed out. And again, for the record, when I quoted μολὼν λαβέ, I was not, by any means, making fun of your sig. Izaakb 15:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I have in mind ( very general). Add hot links to the statutes as well. (Findlaw), possibly additional fields. I think this hits the major "gun control" issues and using the statute links rather than reciting them makes it much cleaner IMHO ( am referring to the California section which reprints the whole section of statutes)

South Dakota

Subject/Law Longarms Handguns Relevant Statutes Notes
Permit to Purchase? No No SDCL §43(1) 48 Hour waiting period on Handguns.
Firearm registration? No No None none.
"Assault weapon" law? No No None none.
Owner license required? No No None none.
Carry permits issued? No Yes SDCL 23-7-7 none.
State Preemption of local restrictions? No Yes SDCL §7-18A-36 none.
NFA weapons restricted? No No ? Federal restrictions only.

South Dakota has few additional restrictions beyond those imposed by Federal law. Notably, South Dakota has a 48 hour waiting period on the purchase of handguns. Carry permits are issued for concealed carry and South Dakota is considered a Shall Issue state.


That is about it. What say ye? Izaakb 17:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks great. Think about including "peacable journey" laws which control the movement of weapons within the state. Some states/localities flagrantly ignore (violate) Federal preemption regarding the interstate transportation of firearms[1], and I think that's pretty notable as far as gun control goes. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 19:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
There have been at least 2 lawsuits brought under the McClure-Volkmer amendment (deprivation of civil rights) against municipalities. The biggest offender was PANYNJ police at the NY area airports, from my information, that has ceased completely in the last 2 years due to a letter written to the Authority by USAG. If you have some specific instances of arrests or cases with state code being used in a prosecution, then do post it pls. I know some states/cities have peaceable journey requirements, but most don't. Maybe a line called "Peaceable Journey requirements?" Izaakb 20:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the Alabama PJ entry. Unless you have a permit, you can't have a handgun concealed anywhere in the vehicle. This is in violation of Federal law (so it appears). --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
McClure-Volkmer allows a state to specify the manner in which a firearm is transported (because it is silent on the manner in which the firearm is transported). The amendment provided for "transport" across state lines, not for carrying. Some states (i.e. Vermont) would allow PJ with the pistol in your lap, but other states (i.e NJ/NY) specify it must be in a locked container outside of the cab (i.e. trunk). Whether or not it is a violation of Fed law is a matter for the courts, really. I just plan to list the laws as they are. Maybe putting them up here will shed some light on it and someone can challenge it, although the USSC has let stand jurisdictions' laws with seemingly incompatible restrictions (i.e. Morton Grove case from 1983) Izaakb 04:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I still don't see the logic in this title though. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 19:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
which title is that? The old or the new? I agreed that it should be reverted as it is a sub of the Gun Politics article -- of which "gun control" is a political issue. Izaakb 20:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Overall, the new format looks fairly reasonable. Propose we use "Long guns" in place of "Longarms" as a column heading as a Google search for "Longarms" shows only a few instances, and long guns even has its own article on WP. Have added a sample content section for Florida, to show what I think the preferred content format should look like. As for the title, I prefer the current title over the older "gun control" title, as a good bit of the content is not about gun control, but is instead about Gun (Firearm) laws in the United States (by state). Focusing on AWB-related gun control law in the article would mean the article only applies in about 5 localities (i.e., 4 states plus D.C.), not ... in the United States (by state). I don't propose a POV fork to capture firearm laws in the United States (by state), and then see this current article contract to be just about gun control related to AWB-continuations in only 5 localities in the US instead of the broader topic. Am open to suggestions. Yaf 03:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Izaakb, will you please explain to this user that the AWB type laws are not the only gun control laws? Maryland doesn't use AWB laws yet it is one of the most gun-controlling states in the nation. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yaf, I agree with Haizum on this:
  1. The parent article is Gun_politics_in_the_United_States, so the basis and original intent of the article was to be about political issues, of which gun control is definitely a political issue.
  2. Gun control laws are not limited to AWB-type laws (or gun restriction laws, case in point Kennesaw, Georgia which requires each homeowner to own a handgun.
  3. I agree about the longarm vs long gun change.
I say the article be re-named back to Gun Control Laws in the United States. The reader can clearly see it is by state and having the extra "(by state)" is superfluous, IMHO.Izaakb 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yaf is currently helping me with the Gun control subsection of Gun_politics_in_the_United_States. Another set of eyes would be good; that subsection will inevitably become a summary for this page so we need to make it very concise, yet accurate, and yet not necessarily focusing on any particular state (for the sake of Neutrality). See the the respective talk page for a summary of changes. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • a good bit of the content is not about gun control
Then remove it. If an article is titled "Tiger", and then someone starts including lion information, and maybe a little tabby information, the article title does not then become 'Cats.' --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
How about I start adding information on fireworks laws so we can title it "Things that Go BANG Laws (by state)." What should we learn from this terrible idea? The title preceds the content. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Focusing on AWB-related gun control law in the article
The only person focusing on AWB laws is you, since you don't seem to understand that there are gun control laws besides the AWB. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • about gun control related to AWB-continuations in only 5 localities in the US instead of the broader topic.
The article is about gun control in all 50 states because all 50 states have gun control laws, not merely 5 localities. If those 5 localites want to have the longest list of gun control laws on Wikipedia, that's their own fault - we are here to report FACTS --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Illinois

I've expanded the existing Illinois section, and added the "standard format" table. I've tried to retain the existing material in this section, in some parts without changing it, in some parts substantially rephrasing it. I am not a lawyer. This is my first contribution to Wikipedia. Mudwater 01:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

On December 31, 2006, an editor who was not signed in added this text to the Illinois section of the article: "upon this regulations of ban of assault weapons in cook county. Concerning from late 2006 to present high capacity mags are allowed. As long as all fallowing procedures to obtain the weapon are fallowed."

I'm looking at Cook County ordinance 06-O-50 as referenced in the footnote. This ordinance was passed on November 14, 2006. It seems to ban the possession of high capacity magazines, but gives residents 90 days to get rid of any that they already have. That would be until February 12, 2007.

Section 6-1(d) defines a large capacity magazine as a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, with a few exceptions such as .22 caliber. Section 6-2(a) says, "No person shall... possess any assault weapon or large capacity magazine." Section 6-2(d) is the part about having 90 days to get rid of any that you have already.

I am not a lawyer, I'm just interpreting what I think the new law says. If anyone else has an opinion on all this your input is encouraged. Thanks. Mudwater 16:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Izaakb has removed the text I was asking about, so we're all set. Thanks. Mudwater 00:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from using "high capacity" in the article. Without the use of qutoation marks, it's POV -- defining a magazine that holds more than "10" as "high" is completely arbitrary. Instead of using quotations, it's preferable to just paraphrase the law(s) which restrict magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. Thanks for the edit. Mudwater 01:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Some statutes define the term "high capacity" as it relates to magazines, or they use the term "Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device" (LCAFD) (i.e. see N.Y.P.L. Sec 265.23) which comes directly from ATF usage. Either way it is appropriate to use quotes (a) to refer to the langauge of that statute or (b) to avoid POV. Izaakb 04:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
If a specific title or direct quotation requires it, then use quotes. I don't see this as being problematic; the ATF should not be considered a neutral entity anyways. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved it

I may be wrong for shooting first and asking questions later, but the parenthenses are not needed in the title. At the very least, Firearm should not be capitalized; it is neither a proper noun nor the beginning of the article title. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure this is clear to everyone, Matt Yeager has renamed the article, from "Gun (Firearm) laws in the United States (by state)" to "Gun laws in the United States (by state)". I thought the old name was okay, but I do prefer the new one. In my opinion it would be even better to rename the article again, to "Gun laws in the United States by state", removing the other set of parentheses but leaving the "by state" part. But, I'm not going to rename it again now. Instead I would request that other Wikipedians leave their comments and opinions here. -- Mudwater 12:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The article title is supposed to be "Gun control in the United States by state," because this article links from the parent article subsection "Gun control." Unfortunately some editors are still living in 1984. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Gun law in the US page

I've created Gun law in the United States by extracting most of the American content from Gun law, where it was dominating the page. I created the new page before discovering that this page exists, and I'm curious as to why all US gun law (federal, state, local) is not covered on one page. I suppose running this page and the (federal) gun law in the US page together would be overly long - perhaps Gun law in the United States should contain a brief summary of the 2nd amendment and the issues surrounding it, summary of federal laws, and a brief summary of state laws, with links to the second amendment page, a page on federal gun law, and this page.

Gun law isn't something I feel strongly about since it isn't much of an issue where I live (New Zealand) - basically my involvement here is about well organised pages where everything is where you would expect it to be found. On that note, I think 'gun law' is a more neutral and therefore better title than 'gun control'. --Helenalex 07:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think 'gun law' is a more neutral and therefore better title than 'gun control'. The fact that it is a categorically incorrect title supersedes how neutral you think it is. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that gun law is a more neutral descriptor than gun control, and should preferentially be used. Yaf 13:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why make me repeat myself? The fact that it is a categorically incorrect title supersedes how neutral you think it is. It's not my fault if you don't have the proper legal background. I'm telling you it's categorically incorrect regardless of a trifling opinion. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Crockery

This article was started as a "gun control" article, and should have remained so. Unfortunately, agenda driven editors thought it would be slick to include more general information relevant to general gun laws to in effect "1984" the original article out of existence. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Having only been watching this page for a few days, can you please explain what the purpose of the original (gun control) page was, and how it differs from the current page? I'd also like to add that name calling ('agenda driven', '1984') isn't helpful and doesn't advance your argument. --Helenalex 22:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of the original article was to provide information regarding specific gun control laws; laws that regulate the production/distribution/ownership of firearms without the reason being a specific safety concern, meaning, laws that are malum prohibitum, as opposed to laws that are malum en se. ex: Total gun ban in San Fransisco = malum prohibitum; laws against personal ownership of chemical/nuclear weapons = malum en se.
If I really wanted to erase the issue, I could just start adding unrelated laws to this article then demand that the article be changed to "Laws by state," which would in effect "1984" this whole stew of BS article writing. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't speak Latin, but from what you've said, and from the current content of the page, the article has been broadened from being about laws which restrict people's ability to buy/carry etc firearms to being about all laws concerning the personal possession/use/transport of firearms. Is this correct? If not, please enlighten me further. If so...
I understand that this article is not how you originally envisaged it, and that this must be annoying. However I disagree that the article has been twisted or '1984ed' (I assume you're referring to the Orwell novel here?). I assume your concern is to show how various states have tried to restrict ownership etc of guns. But it is surely relevant to also show how various states have gone in the opposite direction, ie allowing the carrying of concealed handguns. While this is a broadening of the issue, it in no way 'erases' it in the way the introduction of non gun related laws would. If you want to focus purely on efforts to control guns, perhaps a better idea would be to start a page such as Gun control movement in the United States, which could cover the philosophy of gun control, gun control groups, and successes in gun control. Although it doesn't fit your vision, this is a useful page, and it makes sense to have all gun-related US state laws on the one page, rather than making a distinction between laws which restrict, allow and simply regulate gun use/ownership etc. --Helenalex 23:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with this article with regards to its content, but I'm not happy that came into being at the expense of another; mainly because it has disguised the issue of gun control -- as if there is no gun control movement and that the restrictions are just another series of laws. It's similar to adding a little content to an "Anti-Semetic Laws of Nazi Germany" article, then renaming the article "German Social Laws of 1939," then acting like it's not big deal and not POV. Sure, the new article is probably useful, but it was at the expense of another perfectly acceptable article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
A better analogy might be expanding an article on anti-Semetic laws of Nazi Germany to 'Nazi German laws regarding Jews' and including positive laws as well. I'm assuming that there weren't any, but if there were it would make sense to mention them. Anyway, I would suggest again that you start a page on the gun control movement rather than frittering away your time and energy getting annoyed at what happened to this page. --Helenalex 22:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Right. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Open Carry

I went ahead and removed the statement regarding CHP holders primarily using open carry in restaurants, because not only does it appear to be uncited, but the statement appears to be worded wrong. Perhaps it was meant to say that open carry is primarily done by CHP holders, along with the statement about Virginia law in restaurants which serve alcohol? I am a Virginia resident and a CHP holder and I frequent many bars and clubs and alcohol-serving restaurants, and never have I seen an open carry for my entire stay here, and I live next to many, many naval bases. Additionally, Virginians are harangued about not carrying open because it is a safety issue, and about mixing guns and alcohol in the safety courses they have to take. I really just think the statement was worded poorly so I rearranged it to make more sense. Open Carry is primarily done by CHP holders (a reasonable statement), and that only open carry is allowed inside restaurants which serve alcohol (not just any restaurant). Firebird84 22:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Material copied from CarryConcealed.net

The New Hampshire section of this page is a blatant (and poor!) copy-and-paste job from http://www.carryconcealed.net/legal/newhampshire-ccw-state-laws.php -- the site claims a copyright and mentions nothing about Wikipedia. Can someone remotely familiar with New Hampshire gun laws fix this up? (I'm also not sure how to tag a 'section' as a copyvio.) Fogster 21:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not just New Hampshire, it's a lot of states. Looking at the history of the article, this was done starting on on 29 May 2007. First several IP addresses copy and pasted the concealed carry information for Georgia, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania, then Clarkbob did it for the remaining states that did not have any info in the article, i.e. Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wyoming, and, on 5 June 2007, the District of Columbia. On 16 June 2007, text from CarryConcealed.net was copy and pasted for several states that already had some information in this article, i.e. Nebraska and Nevada.
These sections all include embedded links to CarryConcealed.net as references, and the obvious intention of these edits was to improve the article by adding concealed carry information, with proper citations, especially for states that didn't have any info at all. I do have reservations about this however. One is that it's best, in general, not to copy material from other sources word for word. I've gotten the impression that the articles in Wikipedia are supposed to be original material, with some quotations of other sources allowed, but at the moment I can't find a policy or guideline that clearly states that. I am thinking though that the copied material might be a copyright violation and therefore not allowed — see Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else? and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others.
Also, a lot of the copied material is written in legal language that's not particularly easy to read. I believe the previously existing sections of the article were all comprised of original material, and, while we're not talking Pulitzer prize here, I think they did a pretty good job of explaining the main points in a way that was well organized and easy to understand. On the other hand, the text that's been added does improve the article somewhat, since a lot of states didn't have any information at all before.
I'm not sure if these good faith edits should be removed or not, and I would encourage other editors to give their opinions on this subject in this section of the talk page. — Mudwater 16:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I think what makes this in interesting issue is that CarryConcealed.net (or, from where I would have suspected they came, packing.org) are in and of themselves utilities of summary. They summarize the laws, as this wikipedia article purports to do. Normally I would suggest 'summarizing' any citation, but (as I said...) this already is a summary. My suggestion is to make them block-quotes, citing the source from which the links are. --Osndok 20:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll second that. Nburden 21:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:External links, "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article... it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." Since there are dozens or hundreds of web sites that document state gun laws in the U.S., I think we need to restrict ourselves to the most important, largest, and well known sites, and those with a national scope. In other words, what we have now is about right, give or take a few. So, I'm going to remove the recent good faith addition of the external link to GeorgiaCarry.org. — Mudwater 18:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think my two year old post in this talk page section section still applies. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Original research?

An editor has added the "original research" tag to this article. The tag says, "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details." There are already quite a few references in the article, but, since it covers a large amount of detailed information, I'd say the more the merrier when it comes to good footnotes. But, does the article contain original research? Not according to my understanding of "Wikipedia:No original research". Anyone else have an opinion on this? — Mudwater 01:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! My reading on that was that a lot of the article, in whole sections, is unsourced. There is no way to know what is material created by editors here, and what is imported from reliable sources. I definitely didn't want to just cut out tons of possibly good material, and wanted to get some talk started on it. Perhaps a good way to start each state section would be a simple reposting (with links) to the relevant laws, and then any notable reactions to those laws from reliable sources? Going section by section like that could help to eventually eliminate any opinions or information that aren't notable or sourced, cutting the original research out by default. • Lawrence Cohen 02:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the article "is material created by editors here", in the sense that the editors have written new material that describes state gun laws. That's perfectly appropriate. In fact I'd say it's good, since the articles in Wikipedia should be written by the editors, not copied from other sources, except for attributed quotations. In this article, some of the sections have good footnotes or embedded links to reliable references, while other sections could use some help in that area. Hopefully more references will be found and added to the article. But, according to "Wikipedia:No original research", "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation.'" That's different from sections of an article needing more or better references. — Mudwater 02:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It's been almost two weeks and no one else has said anything about this. So, I'm removing the tag that says "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims." I'm leaving the ones that say "This article needs additional citations for verification" and "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject." — Mudwater 04:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Undefined terms

This article uses a couple of terms without defining what they mean, which may be unclear to someone (like me) who isn't familiar with the subject area. The template uses 'NFA', which I assume means National Firearms Act, although it never actually says so anywhere; and also 'Peaceable journey', which isn't defined anywhere on Wikipedia, and in fact is only used on this page. Someone either needs to write the Peaceable journey article, or explain what it means somewhere in this article. Terraxos (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Peaceable journey" is an exception to general restriction on legal carry of a gun found in some state gun laws, so only finding it on this page should not be surprising. As for definition, legislators use phrases like that and leave it up to court rulings or state attorney general opinions. Such obscure, limited use legal terms are not clear to anyone and are often open to argument. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This article has been tagged as containing a possible copyright infringement. It does in fact contain material that was copied from ConcealedCarry.net. A discussion of this situation is taking place at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 February 16/Articles. Feel free to join the discussion there. I have created a new version of the article with the copyrighted material removed, at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Temp. Please do not edit the old or new versions of the article at this time, they need to be reviewed by an administrator. — Mudwater 20:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's true. Some sections are just copied, not even caring about the formatting (look at the "frequently asked questions" sentence in the New Hampshire section). Most states deserve a major cleanup, although some states have some text which doesn't look like it was copied from concealedcarry.net (e.g. California) Admiral Norton (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the article's very uneven, and some states are a lot better than others. But the current issue is the copied material. I think I've fixed that with the new version referenced above -- take a look if you like, and/or join the discussion at the other link -- but an administrator has to agree. — Mudwater 21:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily. The copyvio template instructions are given to avoid people just removing the template, and even if they weren't, we could just ignore them. On many occasions, I myself have acted as the "administrator" in order to help alleviate the backlog, and because I believe I am knowledgeable enough to do so. Once we've removed it all, the page can go live. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The current page looks much much better, and is probably ready to go live, if people at this page wouldn't have a problem with a few empty sections. The only last question I have at the moment is the Wisconsin section. It passes the google search, but still looks like it may have come from an alternate site. Alternatively, it may have simply been written without proper wikification. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm ready to update the article and remove the template if you think it's okay. What would happen then at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 February 16/Articles, would we just note that the problem has been fixed, so the article shouldn't be deleted? Also, I copied your comment from Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Temp to here, so that the discussion is all in one place. Regarding the Wisconsin section, I agree that it looks a bit strange, but I would propose leaving it the way it is if we can't show that it's a copy vio. I'm open to further discussion though. Note to others: The draft of the revised article is now at Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Temp. — Mudwater 23:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, go ahead, move it over, just make sure you reference Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Temp in the edit summary, in keeping with GFDL. If you want to make a note at the copyright page, go ahead; alternatively, the reviewing admin would probably be able to infer it from the edit history. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll update the article, and make a note on the copyright page too. But, I'm not sure what you mean by "reference Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Temp in the edit summary, in keeping with GFDL." I mean, I know what GFDL is, but I was going to reference this section of the Talk page in the edit summary. Let me know if that sounds okay, otherwise I'll just go ahead. — Mudwater 01:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I mean, make your edit summary something like this: per talk: removing copyvio, transfering material from [[Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Temp]]. GFDL just means you have to give credit to whoever made the changes. And User:Admiral Norton made two significant changes which need to be credited in the history. The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, we're all set. — Mudwater 04:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Georgia

This portion of the Georgia section is incorrect: An eligible person without a permit must keep a firearm unloaded in a case separated from ammunition, or loaded and fully exposed to view (Lindsey vs State of Georgia indicates that the firearm must be fully visible to all possible observers),[49] or loaded in a closed compartment of the vehicle.

The case referenced is a 2004 case and HB 89, which was passed into law in 2008 changed the law the 2004 case was based upon, thereby invalidating this case. The new law states, "This Code section shall not forbid any person who is not among those enumerated as ineligible for a license under Code Section 16-11-129 from transporting a loaded firearm in any private passenger motor vehicle." The portion from "in an open manner ...." onward has been struck out of law. The new law signed into effect by the governor can be seen here: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2007_08/fulltext/hb89.htm. I guess lexus and the other services have simply not caught up with the changes yet. So, as of July 2008 anyone who is otherwise eligible to obtain a Georgia Firearms License (GFL), but does not have one, can carry anywhere in their vehicle just as anyone with a GFL could do. Essentially, the new law expanded the carry provisions that everyone enjoys in their home or place of business to their vehicle as well.

I would change this on the page, but I have absolutely no idea how to do so, so hopefully someone else will read this and make the changes for me. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.123.91 (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to fill out the Georgia law section. I started with the Florida section, becuase their laws are similar in nature and I liked the format. TheGuruFromAU (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


The sectio0n on Oregon is wrong. You cannot carry a handgun in a public school. Currently, at this moment, a teacher is trying to allow herself to carry a handgun for children's and her safety, by the district is debating it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.136.39 (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You can carry a concealed handgun in a public school, but it isn't pre-empted and the district in question has a carry restriction. Admiral Norton (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If HB 89 removed areas from the prohibited list, shouldn't they be removed from the list here?--209.26.166.162 (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop whining

There is nothing wrong with this article on Wiki. If you are liberally biased and you feel guns should be restricted, you've got to do more research. It's proven in MANY other countries that crimes INCREASED after gun control, cause the public was un-armed. The criminals won't give up their guns.
And besides, if our fore-fathers knew we were trying to destroy the second amendment they worked so hard for, they'd come for the past and beat the crap out of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.136.39 (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't refer to an anti-gun bias as liberal bias. There are many progressive voices (Ed Schultz, as one example) that are in favor of a rational policy on firearms. 24.196.95.197 (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
It's true that some liberal politicians and commentators are supporters of the right to keep and bear arms, but that point would be more relevant to an article like "Political arguments of gun politics in the United States". This article, "Gun laws in the United States (by state)", just summarizes existing state and local gun laws, without commenting about whether or not the laws are appropriate or effective, or about who might support or oppose them. As such it's relatively easy for this article to maintain a neutral point of view, whatever the various opinions of the contributing editors. — Mudwater (Talk) 20:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed split of California

An editor has suggested splitting the California section into a separate article. I am creating this talk page section for a discussion of the proposed split. — Mudwater (Talk) 20:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No need, coz WP is not a crystall ball. Moreover the section itself doesnt have references. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 09:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It's been more than a month and no one has given any reasons to split the article, so I've removed the Splitsection template. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii

Hawaii also has a 10 round mag limit on handguns. Just thought that should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.175.48 (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WV open carry bans

Is there some thorough list of West Virginia local ordinances banning open carry? So far I have been directed to cities of Charleston and Dunbar, but I'm unable to find anything forbidding open carry in Dunbar on the official site with city ordinances. Admiral Norton (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Farsighted Vermonters

It was certainly progressive of those Vermont folks in 1777 to model their gun provisions on the 1787 Philadelphia constitution and the 1789 Bill of Rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CornetJoyce (talk • contribs) 03:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


Utah open carry

Contrary to previous versions, open carry is still prohibited in Utah, as noted in the links included by an earlier editor. Specifically 76-10-505. I removed the "unloaded/loaded" information, because it wasn't germane to concealed or open carry. Open carry is illegal, regardless of weapon state, and illegal concealed carry has only slightly different penalties for loaded or unloaded, which is specifically not the same as being considered unloaded under the "two-action" rule. Less whining, more reclining (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean this 76-10-505?

Carrying loaded firearm in vehicle or on street. 

    (1) Unless otherwise authorized by law, a person may not carry a loaded firearm:
    (a) in or on a vehicle;
    (b) on any public street; or
    (c) in a posted prohibited area.
    (2) A violation of this section is a class B misdemeanor.

That does not prohibit carrying of an unloaded firearm. I have been over this with local Law Enforcement and we have contacted several attorneys who all agree that open carry is, in fact, perfectly legal, because the law does not explicitly prohibit it. It does not, however, specifically grant it.

Attorney General Mark Shurtleff seems to agree;

Shurtleff, M.: My opinion on that it is very clear that in Utah you can carry a weapon, open, as long as it is unloaded. Meaning, nothing in the chamber, you can have a full magazine in it but as long as there is nothing in the chamber. That is what “unloaded” is defined as. You don’t have to have a permit. Anybody in this state, if they are of the right age to own a weapon... (source http://www.magnanewspapers.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=59&Itemid=1)

67.166.109.95 (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Excessive Open Carry Focus?

Why is so much space in this article devoted to open carry? It feels like it would if a bunch of Ron Paul supporters wrote a page on the 2008 election.

Not saying it shouldn't be in there, but when the open carry details of Washington State are the bulk of the entry it seems a little out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.131.15 (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  • All this means is that someone interested in open carry took the time to add that information. Rather than deleting open carry stuff, other editors should be encouraged to round out the article with more comprehensive information. --tc2011 (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I just went through changing all the broken links which are carryconcealed.net and packing.org links to relevate pages on usacarry.com. But now all the changes have gone back. If you click on any of those links you will see they are broken. Is there a reason why they were switched back after I spent the time to fix all of them> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahman (talk • contribs) 04:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that you've explained it here on the discussion page, and in your last edit summary, I see that a lot of the links you replaced were broken. It looks like (1) the packing.org site isn't there any more, (2) the carryconcealed.net pages are there, but a lot of them have different URLs now, and (3) you removed a few links that were okay, like the one to californiaconcealedcarry.com. So, the carryconcealed.net links should be updated rather than removed, valid links like californiaconcealedcarry.com should be put back, and the new USACarry links should stay in the article. I might make those updates if I get a chance. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I restored all the deleted links from carryconcealed.net, and updated the URLs so that they work again. The only one I didn't put back is the reciprocity map in the lead section -- that exists, but it doesn't seem to be working right now. I also restored the link to californiaconcealedcarry.com. I left in all the links to USACarry.com, except in a couple of cases where multiple links had been replaced with the same link -- for example, the USACarry concealed carry reciprocity map in the lead section. Additionally, I updated some of the links so that the text that displays in the footnotes corresponds more closely with the actual web page. I also changed a few inline citations to footnotes. So, I think we're all set for now. — Mudwater (Talk) 17:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer Language

IMHO, it would be a good idea to prominently place language in the lead to the effect of "The information in this article may be accurate, or may even be deliberately falsified. It is your responsibility to know the law." Thoughts? --tc2011 (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There actually used to be a disclaimer on this article, but it was removed, to follow the Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles guideline. You can read more there, especially in the "Why they should not be used" section. Briefly though there's a "Disclaimers" link at the bottom of every page that serves the purpose. If you click on it you'll go to the Wikipedia:General disclaimer page, which also has a link to the Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer page. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess that's that. --tc2011 (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. Good thought though. I'd hate to think that anyone might make any important decisions based on the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 17:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

CA laws: wait, what?

Is it me, or does it state under the California section that neither pistols nor long arms require a registration to buy under the chart, but in the commentary it states that there is in fact a registration required? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.70.220 (talk) 08:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Prose Tag

I tried to add a prose tag to the Virginia section (for some reason, I thought prose was also a section tag). That is all. Nburden (T) 00:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Virginia section was changed a lot recently, and I agree that the new version should be rewritten in more of a prose style. Maybe I'll rewrite it if I can find the time, or perhaps some other editor will lend a hand. Thanks for the input. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing an entry on interstate moves

I moved from NY to WI two years ago. Recently I got an invite from a friend to hunt on his WI farm. After four or five hours of web research I'm still unable to ascertain whether and how I can bring my late great grandpa's (bequeathed to me) Browning 20 guage from NY to WI. I know airlines do not prohibit transport if the weapon is encased and checked into cargo, but there is no info at all here for legality regarding interstate moves. IMHO this needs to be corrected.

The NY section goes five or seven paragraphs into various handgun ownership issues but never addresses the issues with hunting weapon owners trying to transport guns from NY to another state.

The WI section is even less helpful. While it is detailed in several different legislative areas, it left me with the impression that I'm going to be arrested if my weapon and ammo are not under lock and key up until the moment I spot the animal I want to harvest. I just want to be certain that when I land at the airport I can put my arms into the trunk of my car and drive off without being guilty of some obscure crime.

This is the only weapon I own; it's been passed from my great grandfather to my grandfather to my father and then to me. As such it is very dear to me. Can someone who knows what they are talking about please add a section with some info on the best way to legally and constitutionally transport my weapon over state lines, without getting into too much technical info with a state-by-state guide?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.13.82 (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Washington State

The Washington State section contains the phrase "...interpreted the law passed as an open-carry ban that is situational to someone making a 911 phone call." In the context of this section of the article, I can't quite figure out what this phrase is meant to convey - the original writer seems to be saying that a 911 phone call demonstrates a type of situation where the bit of open carry laws are meaningful. Could it be rephrased/clarified? 76.104.188.253 (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute [Washington State]

Several statements are made which appear biased and are presented without attribution or citation: "In Washington, there was a tremendous amount of disinformation among law enforcement officers, gun store employees, and firearms instructors about RCW 9.41.270." "Many law enforcement personnel, a generation removed from the events and discussions of the Legislature when the law was created and without much guidance," "Several localities (including transit agencies) who had wrongfully enforced preempted local ordinances and rules have been challenged by activists in the open-carry movement (who are most directly affected by the enforcement of such ordinances) and have since backed down from enforcement and directed their police departments no longer to enforce the ordinances and rules." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wagoods (talk • contribs) 15:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Concealed carry for long guns

I reverted the comment that CCW permits do not apply to long guns, as it all depends. For example, under Florida law, even long guns must be concealed except when in use under a rather limited set of conditions (hunting, target shooting, self-defense, etc.) Especially, for example, if someone lives in a condominium, and wishes to cross common property areas, say from a parking lot to a particular condo, it is illegal to openly carry the long gun to or from a car or truck except under rather limited circumstances (during exercising legal self defense, mostly). In general, the long gun must be concealed when carried in public. However, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon of any kind, including a long gun, without a permit in public. Hence, the concealed carry permit is required to enable carrying any gun concealed in a public area. This points out the difference between a CHL (concealed handgun license) and a CCW (carrying concealed weapon) permit. The CCW applies to a wide variety of weapons, not just handguns. A CHL applies only to a handgun, and, in some case, just one particular handgun by some state laws. Yaf 01:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, and thanks for the explanation. I'm curious though about your example of carrying a long gun from a parking lot to a condo when in Florida. It's pretty difficult to literally conceal a long gun. Would carrying it enclosed in a case, unloaded, be legal? I hope so. -- Mudwater 01:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, provided you have a CCW permit! Concealment is not the same as literally concealed :-) (Thank goodness!) Specifically, the gun must be securely encased, preferably in a commercial softcase with a zipper, or stowed in a similar zippered covering for transport. This is not the same requirement as requiring the gun to be encased securely, however, in, say, an aluminum case with a lock.
Let me explain by going back to a handgun example for a moment. If a handgun is in a holster with a snapped strap, then it is securely encased, and it is legal to transport it this way in a car, with or without a CCW in Florida. This is not the same as requiring a handgun to be completely encased securely, however, with no part of it visible. For example, a soft bag opened at one end with a handgun in it is not securely encased, even though it does mean the handgun is concealed. (A Crown liquor bottle bag with a handgun in it that is concealed but which is not securely encased (there is no zipper!) is a common legal case that seems to come up about every other month in Florida!)
Likewise for a long gun, as long as it is securely encased (this doesn't even require all parts be concealed) it is considered legal for transport with or without a CCW permit. However, by the same token, if you go across a public area, you literally step into an unintended technical omission created by mistake by Florida legislators under current Florida gun law since you are now carrying a concealed weapon. The gun must be concealed in public, even if a long gun, by Florida law. A zippered case is considered to be adequate for concealment for a long gun. However, under existing Florida law, once you put the long gun in the zippered case and it becomes concealed under the law, you must have a CCW permit to possess it in public areas, such as in the commons areas of condos, and such as in the common hallways or parking lot areas of a condo. Otherwise, you have committed a felony.
There are other reasons for having a CCW that apply to a long gun, too. Having a CCW excuses one from committing a school zone gun law felony if one strays accidentally within 1,000 feet unintentionally of even a one-room school house when going around a blind curve. If you have a CCW, then this becomes a misdeameanor with a minimal fine ($25, as I recall), instead of being a major felony with prison time. Yaf 02:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
isn't there a difference between concealing a gun, and transporting a gun though? because even in states with concealed carry law, one must transport guns from one location to another. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This website has not been updated in over a year and is providing outdated information. I suggest we remove all links referencing this website.--Kahman (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No responses to this? 71.251.92.25 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Article neutrality disputed, fifty tables

The discussion thread in the section just above has drifted off topic, so bringing focus back. Specifically, the fifty tabular summaries of the state laws focus on seven category of laws which happen to be of interest to the POV that favors gun rights. There are a number of category of laws missing, and these are those of interest to the POV most concerned about curbing gun violence. This imbalance in the fifty tables amounts to a WP:UNDUE policy violation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

  • You're not being objective in that assessment. Each of those tables contain 8 entries. 5 of those 8 actually deal with gun control measures.
  1. Does the state require a permit to purchase? Requiring a permit is a form of gun control.
  2. Does the state require registration? Registration is a form of gun control.
  3. Does a state have an "assault weapons" law? AW laws ban certain types of firearms, certainly a type of gun control.
  4. Is an owners license required? Again, this is a form of gun control.
  5. Are carry permits issued? Again, the requirement of a permit is a form of gun control.

So your objection is really not well reasoned. AGF isn't a suicide pact and I'll call a duck a duck. This objection is just WP:POINTy and an attempt to disrupt. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This ad hominem is plainly uncivil and harmful to constructive work on this talk page. What does proving a personal point about "gun control" have to do with writing a neutral article, other than to act as a red herring? I am noticing the obvious here. The fifty tabular summaries of categories of gun laws cover gun law catagories of interest to gun rights proponents, and largely ignore categories of laws of interest to the opposite POV. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Call it an ad hominem if you want, but that won't make it so. I called your objection pointy and an attempt to disrupt. I didn't comment on you at all. If you'd like me to comment on you, just extend the invitation, then it won't be an attack. I demonstrated that 5 of the 8 categories in each of those tables is also of interest to "the opposite POV". In case you missed it, 5 of 8 is over half, which means it's NOT tilted towards gun rights proponents. Now if you'd like to stop complaining about imaginary red herrings or other diversions from the reality, maybe you could explain how having over half of the table devoted to categories of interest to gun control proponents makes this the neutrality issue you stated. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I think your logic that somehow because a law category can be described as a "control law" that therefore it represents the categories of laws of interest to the opposite POV seems contrived. What are you reading, or is this theory coming from your WP:OR? In my objection, I look at the categories of gun laws that the Brady Center gives attention, and these include Firearm Trafficking, Background Checks, Child Safety and Guns In Public Places. These four categories are missing from the 50 tables, therefore I think there is a WP:UNDUE policy violation here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Further, the opposite POV self describes as being organizations advocating against "gun violence". Generally the "gun control" label is favored by gun rights advocates to frame their opponent with a negative label. We should avoid that tactic here because of our duty to edit neutrally. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • What you apparently miss is that stating a group is "against gun violence" is that the very direct implication is that anyone with an opposite view must be "pro gun violence". Saying that someone is "pro gun violence" is extremely predjudicial. Or do you contend that implying someone is pro gun violence is perfectly acceptable? I'd also point out that before they changed their name to the Brady Campaign, their name originally National Council to Control Handguns, then Handgun Control, Inc. Now you can argue that they changed their name and their history doesn't matter any longer, but I think that's not very honest. They changed tactics and got smarter in the public relations, which is very smart on their part. But almost every category on that scorecard is a measure to inhibit private ownership of firearms. I also began discussing the specifics of the scorecard above. Of course you are invited to discuss the points I've raised there. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, please stop the evasion. Could we discuss the NPOV issue of the categories of laws in the tables? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Evasion? You were the one that brought up the whole "control" versus "gun violence" issue, then you call my responding to it "evasion"? Unbelievable. Can this get more transparent? And, oh yeah, I have started addressing the NPOV issue, one category at a time here: [2]. Again, I invite you to respond to the specific example. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I followed your link and didn't see you addressing the issue of NPOV for the categories of law in the fifty tables. Please be specific. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • What specific categories do you think need listed in these 50 tables and why? And do you dispute that the 5 I detailed above aren't of interest to those who "oppose gun violence"? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I think I have answered these two questions before. 1) When I looked at the categories of gun laws at the Brady Campaign scorecard, I see that four out of five of their 'top level' law categories; Firearm Trafficking, Background Checks, Child Safety and Guns In Public Places are missing from the 50 tables. 2) Your reasoning of "5 I detailed above" (as near as I can tell) is not founded in anything other than your contrived personal reasoning, and therefore it is not relevant here per WP:Policy. Our duty is to look at the sourcing and try to craft an article that matches the POV balance seen in the sourcing as opposed to personal reasoning. Reread WP:UNDUE if you are unclear on that policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, some of the already present categories are addressed in the current tables. However, trying to address it by those "upper 5" creates a problem. How do we address the sub-categories? For instance, right now, the tables answer yes or no, there is a waiting period. But the Brady scorecard has 14 subcategories under that heading. So what would we answer for Connecticut, who scores points in 6 of the 14 sub categories? Are we going to make 14 subs? Or have 6 footnotes to explain CT? Meanwhile, the current table currently explains: "Certificate of Eligibility for Pistol or Revolver required to purchase handguns. Applicants must complete an approved handgun safety course, and pass a NICS background check prior to issuance of certificate. Certificate of Eligibility valid for five years. There is a 14-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns, with exceptions for peace officers and Active-Duty military members" and cites the Connecticut statutes that apply. You have to admit, that is a fairly infomative entry, which already addresses the topic of background checks. Can you give an example of how you intend to address these states (which are the majority) that have split answers within those "upper 5" categories? Perhaps an example of how you think the table should look? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for indenting, that is helpful. I need to work on it to answer specifics, and will give it a try. In general I expect that simply adding the gun law categories that we see on the Brady Campaign to the 50 tables will be what it takes to fix that WP:UNDUE problem.
  • I paapreciate your response and I do believe this can be resolved civilly, given time and discussion. I am interested in seeing how you work out what looks like a very complicated problem. The presence of the numrous sub-categories in each of the "upper 5" is going to present a challenge to be sure. And it's not that I object to all of the info from the score card, my objection is to the form. I don't believe that the graphic itself is that informative and in presenting it in a visual form is the problem because, let's face it, graphics catch the eye. As I said from the start, if there were similar graphic from the "other side", that would be fine. Likewise, I'd have far less objections to much of the info from the scorecard if it were presented either in prose or in the tables alongside the other info. That seems more likely to be balanced to me. But I would like to see what you come up with to address the sub-category issue and maybe we can figure out something workable. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

Per User:MiszaBot I, "Before requesting automatic archiving on an article's talk page or a Wikipedia forum, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there." Per Help:Archiving a talk page, "... there may be circumstances where it benefits discussions to keep older sections visible on the talk pages, so that newly visiting editors can see which issues have been addressed already and avoid redundant discussion.... Decisions about when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are made according to consensus for each case..." I therefore propose that this article's talk page be archived manually, not by a bot, and that it only be archived when some discussion sections are very old, or when the talk page becomes extremely long. — Mudwater (Talk) 15:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Getting consensus on the issue is certainly appropriate. If it were up to me to manage this, I would choose the bot with a fairly long time period (perhaps 6 months), But as long as there is someone who prefers the manual method and is willing to manage it before things get out of hand, I would support that. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV problem with article

Consider this, the article presently shows the yes:no status of a number of categories of laws for each state:

  1. State Permit to Purchase?
  2. Firearm registration?
  3. "Assault weapon" law?
  4. Owner license required?
  5. Carry permits issued?
  6. NFA weapons restricted?
  7. Peaceable Journey laws?

Similarly, the Brady score card is based on the yes:no status of a number of categories of laws for each state:

  1. Firearm Trafficking
  2. Background Checks
  3. Child Safety
  4. Military-style Assault Weapons
  5. Guns In Public Places.

See any difference between these lists? Why did we choose one category of law and not another? Where is the neutral balance point implicated by our choice? SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that a trick question? Is there a difference? You mean aside from the fact that they are different? Factually stating that yes or no a state has a waiting period is much different that stating an opinion that it is "weak" or "strong". The Brady criteria is nothing more than their opinion on whether or not they approve of a states laws, based on their own activist criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I am not asking about the Brady Center's opinions. Answering my questions. Our editing of this article is framed by which laws we choose focus upon in the article. We have chosen certain laws to talk about, and have chosen certain laws to not talk about. We have chosen to favor the laws of interest to pro-gun people, and not chosen the laws of interest to people opposed to gun violence. This skew violates WP:NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I did answer your question. The first list is factual answers. Either a state does or does not have a waiting period etc. That is a matter of FACT. Whether an organization feels that a particular waiting period is weak or strong is a matter of opinion. Nor does that graphic address the individual laws you listed. Instead, it lumps them into a color coded mix. And what is a "good" "guns in public places" law versus a bad one? Whatever Bradys opinion is. Whereas the other list is being addressed by citing statutes. Stating what the law says is neutral. Stating what you think about the law is not. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it appears that you are misunderstanding my question. I am asking why the article gives undue focus to the gun laws which are of interest to the NRA-ILA and the various open carry organization. And, at the same time this article gives little attention to the gun laws of interest to organizations who advocate for reductions in gun violence. For instance, I see little coverage of gun laws that address child safety, background checks or illegal gun trafficking. There is a special problem with the fifty tabular law summaries. Those tabular summaries focus disproportionately on laws of interest to pro-gun organizations. This seems a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I just refreshed my understanding of WP:UNDUE and I have to agree with SaltyBoatr. Two important perspectives that are wholly unrepresented in deciding which state guns laws should be listed are that of law enforcement, whose professional responsibility is to reduce gun crime, and public health professionals, whose professional responsibility is to prevent gun injuries of all kinds. Police chiefs' point of view could be easily represented by consulting this document: http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/pdfs/Publications/ACF1875.pdf and public health's perspective could be included by referencing this document: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=170.--PFS (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, the IACP is an activist organization of their own and their leadership is often at odds with the rank and file. They're less biased than Brady, but not neutral either. Polls have shown over and over that the rank and file in law enforcement do not support gun control laws. And the public health angle has to be looked at carefully too. Careful attention has to be looked at what their study criteria is and what their methodology was. Example, a study from the CDC some years back that considered 18 and 19 year old felons shooting each other as "children". Yet in every one of the 50 states, 18 is the age of majority. When the 18 and 19 year old ADULTS were removed from that study, the numbers dropped drastically.Niteshift36 (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Forget the IACP then and stop your rant about Brady, we already know that you loath them. That is not the question. The problem here is that the fifty tabular summaries of state laws presently in the article address categories of gun laws of concern primarily to gun rights advocates. While at the same time tending not to address categories of gun laws of interest to the opposite POV. Missing is coverage of several significant categories of gun laws, illegal gun trafficking laws, child safety laws, tracing of criminal use of guns and guns in the workplace/schools. This causes a clear violation of WP:NPOV because the article skews towards the point of view frame disproportionately favored by just one POV. Our duty as editors is to craft an article that fairly represents major POV's including the POV's that with which we personally may disagree. SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
You are arguing the process, changing the subject, incessantly, and avoiding the substance of discussion of improving the encyclopedia. Heck, you even argue the guideline of using indentation to make talk page discussions more readable. This behavior is disruptive to the goal here of writing an encyclopedia. Asking other editors: What shall we do control this disruption? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Well since you went complaining to ANI, you can stop your "what are we going to do" attempts to build a "tag team". Also, I didn't argue the indenting guideline. I said it was getting tedious and I didn't care if I did it any longer. So keep your facts straight. Further, it was not me that started all these subsections and made the same conversation take place in 3 different sections. But since you did, quit complaining about it and answer in the correct place (and don't forget to indent). Niteshift36 (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
First, I should reiterate that I made every effort to exclude/remove anything from the graphic that expressed an opinion on whether restrictive gun laws are a good thing; I do not think such an opinion would be appropriate for this article. You could argue that it embodies an opinion on what constitutes restrictive, but I think it is pretty neutral in that regard. Brady wants to restrict gun access and usage, so they have no reason to skew that assessment. However, regardless of whether you think it expresses such an opinion, WP:NPOV says:

material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV"

It further states:

An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common.

So if you believe that this material shows a point of view, you should quote sources that show alternative points of view. Deleting the material is not appropriate. You have said that you personally do not agree with their criteria, but you have not shown any sources that show a contrary viewpoint. Your personal disagreement with the viewpoint, or with the organization that is the source of the viewpoint, is not grounds for deleting the graphic.
-- JPMcGrath (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Please do not mischaracterize what I said. I haven't said that I personally don't agree with the criteria. I have correctly pointed out that their criteria is selected towards their opinion of gun control laws, not just gun laws. Their rating system is only about control law. Period. Their assessment is based on their opinion of the restrictiveness of the laws. Because that is their agenda. While you quote NPOV, you forget the other policy that goes with it WP:UNDUE. "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". Where is the other viewpoint about whether or not these laws are restrictive or not? This graphic isn't stating fact, like the length of a waiting period. It is depicting their assessment of whether or not a waiting period is "restrictive" or not, in their opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
What is "control law"? That seems to be a vague term that could be applied to any law that one does not personally agree with. The issue here is gun regulation, and the Brady Scorecard (I think just about everyone would agree) is an accurate depiction of how extensively firearms are regulated from state to state. If the Scorecard was indeed arbitrary or advancing an agenda, I think you'd have a strong point, but it is based on a very specific set of objective criteria which is evenly applied from state to state. Furthermore, that criteria can be provided as a citation along with the table to make that clear. Forward Thinkers (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • A control law is simple. A law that seeks to either outright prohibit ownership, add more restrictions to ownership or provides more regulations that must be complied with to obtain a firearm. In simple English: Makes it harder to legally obtain firearms and provides more hoops to jump through. A waiting period is a means of delaying ownership. I'm not saying it's bad or wrong, but it inhibits ownership. Background checks? Again, not a bad idea, but still a means of controlling who gets guns. Child-fireamrs laws. Controlling how a firearm is stored in a private residence. Violating the law can result in the loss of firearm ownership. "Military style assault weapons" laws? Aside from the fact that they are already covered in the article, those laws are designed to prohibit ownership of certain firearms, mainly based on cosmetics. "Guns in public places"? Well who knows what that means, because it is a poorly defined criteria. The Brady scorecard doesn't deal with how firearms are regulated, it deals with how specifically selected categories are dealt with from state to state. Those categories are selected because they are measures that they back through their legislative lobbying. That is why their POV is skewed. It only focuses on specific areas that they have an agenda in. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Niteshift: Sorry, that was Mudwater that said he disagreed with the assessment. I did not intend to misrepresent your viewpoint. My apologies.
Regarding WP:UNDUE, it states:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

The aspect of the subject involved here is the restrictiveness of state gun laws. I think it is hard to argue that a single assessment of their restrictiveness in an article about state gun laws is undue weight.
I do not understand how the part you quoted about neutrality supports your viewpoint. Are you aware of other "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources"? If so, please add it to the article, or post a reference and I will be glad to do so. I have searched for other viewpoints on state gun law restrictiveness, and I have not found any.
-- JPMcGrath (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The reason you don't find a lot of those is because most orgs simply cites statutes and don't make a determination about what is (in their opinion) restrictive or not. They state the law. The facts. Then let the reader decide if it is restrictive or not. How can anyone actually call Brady the least bit neutral? They're no more neutral than the NRA is. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, so to summarize the NPOV/UNDUE arguments here:
  • NPOV:
    • You say it violates NPOV
    • NPOV says that "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources".
    • You say that there aren't any other viewpoints published by reliable sources (or to be precise, you say "you don't find a lot of them" and you have not provided any).
  • UNDUE:
    • You say it violates UNDUE, but you quoted something about reliable sources.
    • UNDUE says the article should not give undue weight to any aspect of the subject.
    • I contend that including a single assessment of gun law restrictiveness is not undue weight.
    • You have not disputed that.
Is this an accurate summary? Or have I missed something?
-- JPMcGrath (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Tell you what SaltyBoatr, then link I found for this rating [3] is MUCH different than the 5 simple categories you provided above. So please provide me with a specific link you are using that shows the criteria they used to arrive at the rankings shown in the graphic you are wanting to insert. That's not unreasonable to ask, is it? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Follow the link at the bottom of that page:
» Click here to download full scorecard
-- JPMcGrath (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
BTW, Please see Help:Talk pages#Indentation. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I know the indenting nonsense. It's getting tedious and I choose not to play that game every time. If we're done complaining about silliness.....Now, as for the scorecard, that's pretty much what I found and that's a MUCH different picture than was painted with those 5 seemingly innoccous questions above. This whole scorecard is horribly skewed towards their agenda. It goes into secuity measures for stores (which has nothing to do wth this article), ammo regulation (again, seperate from guns), "childproof guns" which is an unreliable technology that has been rejected in almost every location because of the unreliability (49 out of 50 reject it) Even law enforcement, which stands to benefit from that idea (because it prevents officers from being shot by their own weapon) has rejected it across the board because no company has been able to make it reliable, they rate on magazine capacity standards. One that I loved was giving a state a zero for not having a law prohibiting the sale of a handgun to someone under 21. Um, federal laws (which apply to the state) already do that. There is no need for a state law, yet the state is penalized for not having a law prohibiting something that is already illegal. They give points for laws that are contrary to the Supreme Courts rulings. They take points for allowing concealed carry licenses, regardless of the states regulations. Why does a state that requires fingerprinting, background checks and proof of training given a zero? Because Brady has an agenda and they're using this scorecard to advance it. It rates on things in their legistaltive agenda. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the indenting, it was not a complaint. Rather I was pointing out the indenting convention, which is there to make it easier for people to follow the threads of conversation. I am sorry you think it is nonsense. I will not bring it up again.
Regarding the rest of your message, you make some good points, but I see flaws in them as well and am tempted to address them. However your personal opinions of Brady's assessment are really just a distraction, so I will exercise restraint.
You removed the graphic from the article and have justified that removal on the grounds that it violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Above, I summarized your argument in a way that I believe shows that it is completely groundless. Unfortunately, you ignored it. Since you removed the graphic, I think you need to show just cause, but you appear to be unwilling to do so. So I ask you again, is the summary above accurate? Do you have anything further to add to it?
-- JPMcGrath (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • First, the graphic was restored using the justification that it was a 4:2 !vote. This is because a RfC was started and saltyboar waited a whole couple of hours, took the first 2 responses and decided the matter was resolved. Can you honestly tell me that you think it is proper to declare a "consensus" after 3 hours? Shouldn't a RfC be allowed to run at least a full day, if not several days? So I removed it to allow the RfC to run it's course.
Regarding the actual issue, my "personal opinion" has validity, as does any other editors, because let's face it, that's how things get decided. We discuss things at AfD, RSN, BLPN etc. Got to an AfD and see some editors who are of the opinion that a subject has receieved "significant coverage" and some who believe that the subject hasn't. That is sheer opinion. Nothing more. People give their opinions and a consensus gets formed. So let's not pretend that opinions have no place on Wikipedia. Instead, let's look at some of them one at a time. Let's start with "childproof guns", ok? 49 of 50 states do not have a law that meets the criteria for Brady to give them points. Without going into the mechanics or the reliability issue, let's stay with the POV part. If 49 of 50 states reject this, I'd call that a clear majority, wouldn't you? The fact that Brady includes a category that 98% of the states reject as a gauge, shouldn't that call into question whether or not that is even a valid category? I believe it is reasonable to think that the inclusion of a category that 98% of the states reject (even the ones they consider some of the most restrictive) is due more to their agenda (as they have unsuccessfully lobbied for this legislation in several states) and less with it being a "what's the norm" kind of criteria. It is included because, in Brady's opinion, it's a law that they think should be on the books. Again, please let's focus on just this question...can you at least conceed that this one category is questionable? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure what the point of your first comment is. Note that I did not restore the graphic, either yesterday or when two weeks ago when it was removed the first time. Rather than engage in edit wars, I think it makes more sense to discuss the merits of the removal, with civility, honesty and integrity, and I have tried to do that. To me that means sticking to the issue at hand, avoiding distractions and little digs at those with whom you disagree. It also means addressing points made by your adversaries and conceding a point if you can no longer defend it.
I certainly agree that your personal opinion has validity. But whether you agree with a source is emphatically not the criteria for inclusion in an article. It seems to me that it is self-evident that cannot be the case. If anyone who disagrees can veto the inclusion, there would be little that would pass that test and there would be virtually no content. Instead, the Wikipedia approach is to include all significant views, as long as they are backed by reliable sources.
It seems to me that you are conflating opinions on how to follow Wikipedia policy with allowing personal opinions to override Wikipedia policy.
-- JPMcGrath (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I didn't say that you restored it and can't even see where you drew the inference that I did. I thought when I said "saltybotr waited a whole couple of hours, took the first 2 responses and decided the matter was resolved" that is was pretty clear I was talking abot his actions. Then I asked your opinion on calling a RfC concluded after less than 3 hours.
Nor do I see where I have addressed you in less than a civil manner. If you'd like to point out where you think that happened, please do, because it wasn't intended.
Again, I invite you to reply to the specific point I started with. While you're busy telling my that I'm basing this only on my opinion, you're forgetting about the actual discussion. Rather than trying to take the scorecard as a whole, I've tried to ask you to discuss it a point at a time, so we can better decided what to do. Do you think it is a non-biased, non-agenda pushing point for Brady to penalize a state for something that has been rejected by 98% of the states? Or does inclusion of what is, at this point in history, an obscure measure that is just part of their legislative agenda, an attempt to "chastise" a state for not doning something that is, in their opinion, something the states should be doing. Are you going to discuss it, or just keep telling me it is just my opinion? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I did not say, nor in any way suggest, that you had said that I had restored the graphic, and I don't believe that you said that. I did not say anything that related to restoring the graphic in my previous message and I did not restore the graphic. So what I said is that I did not see the point of you bringing that up in your message to me. It did not, and does not, seem relevant to this conversation.
I also did not say that you had addressed me in an uncivil manner, nor did I mean to imply that. I am sorry my comment came across that way. What I said was that I have tried to meet those goals. The reason I made the comment was not driven by our conversation, but by some of what has occurred on this talk page. I was hoping the comment would nudge others toward those goals as well. It was not directed at you specifically.
Indeed, I have not replied to your critique of the Brady criteria. As I said before, your opinion of the criteria (and mine as well) does not matter. If you could come up with reliable sources that criticizes the criteria, that would be relevant, but you would need to produce overwhelming criticism in order to justify removing the graphic. Regardless, your opinion that it is flawed, without any reliable sources, is not a basis for removing it.
That said, since it seems important to you, I will address your comments about the merits of the scorecard, even though I believe it is not relevant, and you have not shown that it is relevant. In return, I ask that you address my comments about WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, which clearly are relevant, since you cited them as reasons the scorecard graphic should be removed. And if you would like me to further discuss the merits of the scorecard, I think you need to show that it is relevant.
OK, so New Jersey has a law requiring "child safety features" on newly purchased handguns and the 49 other states do not have this requirement. Undoubtedly, that makes New Jersey more restrictive in that respect, and the Brady ratings reflect that. Brady thinks that is more restrictive and thinks that is a good thing. I presume you think it is a bad thing, but do you think it is more or less restrictive? I cannot imagine that you could disagree with Brady on this point; it is clearly more restrictive. The fact that other states do not have the New Jersey requirement does not make the law more or less restrictive. The law is restrictive, and both pro-gun and anti-gun people can agree on that.
I will await your response to my NPOV / UNDUE question.
-- JPMcGrath (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • You don't understand, this IS part of the NPOV/UNDUE issue. This is not about whether I think restrictive is good or bad. They penalize states for something that virtually the entire nation rejects. If this were a matter of 40 states had it and 10 didn't, the penalty would seem less POV. But when the national response is an overwhelming no, the fact that they penalize states for not having a law that virtually everyone has rejected (despite Brady's efforts), it stinks of POV and agenda pushing. Giving weight to a criteria that has a 98% rejection rate is giving it undue weight. 2% acceptance borders on WP:FRINGE. Consider that the claim we faked the moon landing is considered fringe, yet polls show anywhere from 6-28% of people believe they were faked. If 6-28% is still "fringe", how can we consider 2% to be "normal" enough to be something we can penalize states for not having? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please address how WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE apply, in light of my summary posted above.

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the issue you are missing that the article must include the POV of groups with which we disagree. Your reasoning is that Brady has a flawed and biased POV. Per policy here, it doesn't matter if they are flawed, or biased. As long as it is a 'signficant view', we must include Brady's opinion even if it is flawed or biased. That is what WP:NPOV says. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Whose assessment of the laws are being shown already, requiring Brady to balance? Or what graphic do you propose to give balance to the Brady one? I know what NPOV says, but the lack of neutrality becomes an undue weight issue when the information isn't balanced, especially when the info not being balanced is the minority view. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The one map sourced to Brady has now been balanced with five maps sourced to pro-gun organizations. (POV dilution, it seems) I guess a ratio of 5:1 pro-gun now fixes things. This mirrors the POV energy level of interested editors. Yet, per policy, Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired. This 5:1 ratio is a plain case of editorial bias. This entire article is affected by the bias of the involved editors who have selectively choosen pro-gun sources. Just calling a spade a spade here. SaltyBoatr get wet 13:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree that this is "a plain case of editorial bias". That would be the case if there existed reliable sources that disagreed with the material from pro-gun organizations, and those sources were excluded. I do not think that is the case. If you believe it is, you should add the opposing points of view. — JPMcGrath (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The issue appears to be that this article is essentially a "List of:"-type of article, and the best sourcing available are the actual laws themselves. In an article like this, I personally see no issue with what is termed "Primary Sourcing", because that's precisely what we are looking for - the laws themselves. If one is forced to use "secondary sources" - that is, the laws themselves as referenced by someone else, then one pretty much has to look in places where there is going to be a bias one way or the other, because why else would someone in a reliable source be quoting gun laws? My problem this whole time has been that this article is supposed to be quoting the laws without rendering any kind of analysis or judgement on them one way or the other, and that is why I've been against the summary maps of any kind. Rapier (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Summary of discussions of the Brady graphic

I agree with Niteshift36 that the discussions have become fractured and that has made the discussion more difficult. In an attempt to ameliorate the situation, I am summarizing the areas of discussion so that there will be a single place to add further comments. Please post further discussion at the end of each related sub-section, and not in the discussion sections above.

I am certain that I will not be able to do justice to the arguments made by the removal side, but I hope to include the major areas of contention. Please feel free to correct and expand my summary, and if I have completely missed something, feel free to add a new sub-section.

These discussions started after JPMcGrath added a map to this page titled "State gun law ratings. 2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard" and it was later removed by Mudwater, who justified the removal on grounds that "it violates the principle of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". The question to be decided is whether removal of the map was appropriate or whether it should be restored.

Participants supporting removal are Niteshift36 and Mudwater. Participants supporting inclusion are JPMcGrath and SaltyBoatr, along with minor participation from Stephan Schulz, Forward Thinkers and anonymous user 67.176.160.47.

Bias

The removal side says that the "Brady Campaign State Scorecard violates the Neutral Point Of View policy because the Brady Campaign is strongly biased in favor of gun control and against gun rights". The inclusion side says that while Brady is biased on the efficacy of state gun control laws, they are not biased on assessing the strength of those laws. Stephan Schulz says that the map's colors could be interpreted as pro-gun, and that he "could see exactly the same map produced by the NRA".

The inclusion side says that the graphic characterizes gun laws in terms of restrictiveness and takes no position on whether restrictiveness is good or bad. Niteshift36 says that the graphic shows Brady's opinion on what gun laws are "restrictive enough for them".

Niteshift36 says that there is bias because the graphic data is attributed to Brady and the reader will know that it is based on their assessment. Stephan Schulz says that the inclusion of the graphic is neutral because it is attributed.

Mudwater says that the fact that the Brady assessment assigned higher point values to states with more restrictive laws favored the anti-gun position. In response, JPMcGrath removed the point values from the legend.

SaltyBoatr says that the preponderance of references in the article are for pro-gun sites and that the article is skewed to the pro-gun point of view. Niteshift36 says that the references from pro-gun sites show matters of fact while the Brady assessments are matters of opinion.

NPOV / UNDUE issues

Niteshift36 says that the graphic violates WP:NPOV because it draws WP:UNDUE attention to the opinion of the Brady Campaign. JPMcGrath says that WP:UNDUE applies to aspects of the subject matter and not to the opinions of a particular group. Of course, new participants are welcome on either side.

Niteshift36 says that the graphic presents the assessment of and anti-gun group and it is not balanced by an assessment by a neutral party. JPMcGrath says that the assessment is not controversial and if there are other assessments that disagree significantly, they should be included, but assessments from reliable sources should not be removed. Niteshift36 says that no other assessments exist because pro-gun groups are more concerned about facts than assessments. JPMcGrath says that WP:NPOV does not support deleting sources because sources that disagree cannot be found.

Brady assessment criteria

The removal side says that the Brady assessment criteria is flawed, and that it does not accurately reflect how restrictive a state's gun laws are. Mudwater says that Brady assigns points based on the number of gun control laws and does not sufficiently weigh specific types of gun laws, such as "restrictions on concealed carry, local gun bans, and licensing of firearms owners".

Niteshift36 says that the criteria are selected based on Brady's legislative lobbying, so the criteria is skewed. JPMcGrath says that a Wikipedia editor's opinion does not matter, and that if there are published sources that assess state gun laws, they should be included. For this to be a basis for removal, the criteria would need to be called into question by reliable published sources.

Summary

The inclusion side says that the article is "all trees and no forest", and that it should provide an "overall picture of the gun laws across the country", which the Brady graphic provides. Mudwater agreed that it "all trees and no forest", but says that the article should avoid summaries that might contain opinion.

— JPMcGrath (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Brady and other maps

In a recent edit, the Brady Campaign state scorecard was re-added to the article, but this time several other maps were also added. The new maps reference OpenCarry.org in footnotes. While I appreciate the sincere effort to keep the article balanced, the Brady map still should not be added, for the same reasons as before -- it violates NPOV by promoting a political agenda, and it does not accurately or objectively assess the restrictiveness of different states' gun laws. The new maps, by contrast, merely document specific laws of each state, so those are okay. There should also be some discussion about which of these law-specific maps to add or not to add to the article. For example, there probably should be a map for concealed carry (shall issue, may issue, no issue, no license required). Note also that it doesn't matter whether the references for the maps come from sites that are pro gun rights, pro gun control, or neutral -- that's irrelevant, we merely need to reliably reference what the laws say. So for example if someone created a concealed carry map such as the one I just described, and used the Brady Campaign web site as a reference for the states' concealed carry laws, that would be perfectly fine, even though the state scorecard map is not acceptable in this article. — Mudwater (Talk) 15:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

At your suggestion, I have added a map for concealed carry based on an NRAILA map.
Regarding your assertion of an NPOV violation, I have asked you to support this claim by pointing to the language in WP:NPOV that says material such as this is not permitted. I have also quoted language from NPOV that supports my claim that is should be included. I don't think it is sufficient to just repeat this claim without anything to support it. Would you please provide something that supports this claim?
— JPMcGrath (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I would request that you read, or reread, my 14 posts in the #2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard section above. Most of them are devoted to explaining, in quite a bit of detail, exactly how the Brady Campaign state scorecard violates the NPOV policy. I think that I've covered the subject pretty thoroughly by now, and if you read everything that I wrote in that section, you should get a very clear understanding of my opinions, even if you don't agree with them. — Mudwater (Talk) 20:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I have just reread them and I only found one post that quotes WP:NPOV. If there are others, would you please provide a link to the diffs so I can find them?
In that post, you quote the following section of NPOV:

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

What you seem to be saying in that post is that this part of NPOV needs to be interpreted in context, and that in the context of this article, "representing ... all significant views" should be taken to mean that significant views should be excluded. If that is not what you meant, would you please explain it to me? If that is what you meant, could you quote the text of NPOV that supports this interpretation?
— JPMcGrath (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reading all 14 of my posts in the #2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard section. Taken together, they explain my opinions about this subject quite thoroughly, I think. Right at the moment, I don't see the value in further paraphrasing what I've already written, and I also don't see the value in finding additional quotations from the NPOV policy page. But if I think of anything new to add, either in general, or in response to further discussion, I'll post it on this talk page. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It is clear that the inclusion of the map does not violate WP:NPOV. As has been pointed out to you before, NPOV "requires that all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly". It further states that "material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is 'POV'". You continue to insist that including the map violates NPOV, yet you have not shown any language in NPOV that supports your claim. I think you should take the time to read the NPOV policy. You will find that it does not say what you think it says, or perhaps what you want it to say.
Just asserting that something is true, without providing anything to support it is not meaningful discussion. And acontinually reverting another's edits without discussion is called edit warring. I hope you will stop and try to discuss this rationally.
— JPMcGrath (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My preferance would be that we get rid of all the maps by every advocacy group and let the facts speak for themselves, but if it is absolutely vital to the survival of humanity that we include summary maps for those too lazy or partisan to simply read the pertanent state law, then it is proper that we have several points of view recognized. Rapier (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a viewpoint that is being left out? — JPMcGrath (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Travel gun laws map

Arizona should be changed from blue to yellow on the travel gun laws map, as the new Alaska carry law applies to vehicle carry as well as carry on foot.Hoplophile (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Arizona, right? Not Alaska? Do you have a reference to cite for the change? — JPMcGrath (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Not yet, but as soon as the new law goes into effect, I'll have the Arizona Revised Statutes to cite. Hoplophile (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I got it. Here's the final version signed by the governor, from the Arizona Legislature's website:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1108s.htm
As you can see, the vehicle carry restrictions are completely repealed for anyone over the age of 21. The map needs to be changed. Hoplophile (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I updated the map, and added the citation to the footnote. — JPMcGrath (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard

Recently a graphic of the 2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard was added to the article. I'm removing it because it violates the principle of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The Brady Campaign scorecard is very biased towards a pro-gun-control perspective. Additionally their system of rating states is highly questionable, even if one favors strong gun control laws. This article should summarize state and local gun laws in the U.S., without evaluating or passing judgment on the laws' effectiveness or morality. It's possible that the Brady Campaign scorecard graphic would have some place in another Wikipedia article, but not this one. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article should summarize state and local gun laws, but unfortunately, it does not do that adequately. It's all trees and no forest. It details the gun laws for each state, but it does not give an overall picture of the gun laws across the country. That is what this article needs and that is precisely what the chart was intended to do.
I also think you missed the boat on the issue of neutrality. The Brady campaign certainly has a strong point of view on what gun laws should be, and their opinions related to that could rightly be called non-neutral. But that is not what the chart is about. It simply shows their assessment of the current state of gun laws.
You say that their "system of rating states is highly questionable", but you do not say what you think is questionable, nor do you provide anything to support your statement. While there has been a lot of criticism from gun rights groups in response to the Brady Scorecard, it has been directed at what Brady thinks the laws should be, not at their assessment of state laws. I think their assessment is neutral because they have no interest in misrepresenting what state laws are.
To illustrate this idea, look at the ratings of Congressman by Americans for Democratic Action and the American Conservative Union. While they clearly both have a point of view as to whether liberalism or conservatism is best, they are in general agreement on their ratings of Congressmen. If you look, for example, at their 2008 ratings of House members, you will find a 97.6% (negative) correlation between the ratings. They agree that Barney Frank is a strong liberal (ADA 100, ACU 0) and Michele Bachmann is a strong conservative (ADA 0, ACU 100). They are both neutral because they have no interest in skewing the results.
Your comment about "passing judgment on the laws' effectiveness or morality" is off the mark and somewhat over the line. Nothing in the graphic passes judgement on the effectiveness of gun control laws, much less on their morality. It intentionally avoids any language that expresses approval or disapproval of gun laws. It simply characterizes them as more or less restrictive, which I believe is quite neutral.
-- JPMcGrath (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The Brady Campaign State Scorecard violates the Neutral Point Of View policy because the Brady Campaign is strongly biased in favor of gun control and against gun rights, and this bias is built into the scorecard itself. States with more or stricter laws, as graded by Brady, get a higher score on a scale of 0 to 100, and states with fewer or less strict laws, as graded by Brady, get a lower score. If you go to their web site, the link to the scorecard says "Brady State Scorecard: Most States Have Weak Gun Laws". Each state is assigned a rating of zero to four stars. This is inherently biased, because, to a reasonable person, high scores are better than low scores, being strong is better than being weak, and more stars are better than fewer stars. (See http://www.bradycampaign.org/, http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1223/, and http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/bcam/stategunlaws/scorecard/StateRatings.pdf.)
Suppose a pro-gun-rights group rated all the states on how well they "respected the Constitution, enforced basic legal rights, and promoted the American way of life". Suppose this group gave states numeric grades, with 100 meaning the state did not have any gun control laws, and a low score meaning the state had a lot of gun control laws. Suppose they said that "most states do not respect the Constitution", and gave the states star ratings, with four stars being the highest, for having the least restrictive laws. That too would be inherently biased, and violate Neutral Point Of View, and that too should be excluded from the article.
The neutrality issue alone means the Brady scorecard should not be included in the article, but, on top of that, the scorecard is highly questionable as a rating of how restrictive or non-restrictive states' gun laws are. To the Brady Campaign, any gun control law is a good law, and so they assign points to states on the basis of how many different types of gun control laws they have. But that's not really a good measure of how restrictive a state's laws are, because different types of laws restrict firearms in different ways and with different effects. For example, California is a "may issue" state, and has issued thousands of permits allowing citizens to carry concealed guns, but Illinois is one of two states that does not allow concealed carry at all. California has state preemption of firearm laws, so cities are not allowed to ban the possession of handguns in citizens' homes, but Illinois does not have preemption and Chicago bans the possession of handguns. California does not require all people who possess any firearms or ammunition to have a police-issued firearm owners i.d. card, but Illinois does. Yet the Brady scorecard rates California as a 79, and the only four star state, where Illinois is rated 28 and gets two stars. So, even people who are strongly in favor of gun control should have serious questions about the validity of the Brady scorecard as a measure of states' gun control laws.
You're right about this article being "all trees and no forest", but that's a good thing. Gun laws are an extremely controversial topic. This article should explain the laws of each state, which are factual, and leave aside the big picture, which is a matter of opinion.
— Mudwater (Talk) 23:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the Brady Campaign does say that most states have weak gun laws, and they do rate states on their Scorecard results as zero to four stars. They undoubtedly have a strong anti-gun bias. If it was not clear that I agree with that, it should be now. But there were no stars or characterization of gun laws as "weak" in the graphic; it characterized them as more or less restrictive. Rather than focus on the source of the assessment for the graphic, I think you need to show why the graphic and the assessment it does show should not be included.
The hypothetical you tender is not analogous to this situation and thus falls flat. While pro-gun and ant-gun groups will generally agree on whether a law restricts the use of and access to guns, they do not agree on what is meant by "respect the Constitution", "enforce basic legal rights", and "promote the American way of life".
Your critique of the Brady criteria is somewhat reasonable, although your suggestion that they would assess state gun laws based on the number of laws is not; it has a ring of trying to impart irrationality to opponents that is all too common in politics today. Whether or not you agree with their goal, they are rational and they make choices to further their goal of restricting gun availability.
I understand that you feel that no-issue states should be considered more restrictive, and I would agree that Brady should distinguish between no-issue and may-issue. But the reality is that many may-issue states are de facto no-issue for most residents, so the distinction is not that great. Likewise, preemption does not make much of a difference if the state laws are already the most restrictive in the country. When you throw in purchase permit requirements, purchase limits, universal background checks, and limits on types of guns, it is hard to say that Illinois is more restrictive than California.
The fact that you personally disagree with their assessment is not grounds for removal of the graphic. Even if you were to present a reliable source that disagrees with Brady's assessment (which you have not), the appropriate action per WP:NPOV would be to include the new source, not delete the other one.
I am surprised that you think "all trees and no forest" is a good thing. If the article does not summarize the material, then in order to get an overall sense of the state laws, one would need to read through the entire article and figure it out. Avoiding useful material because someone might find controversy in it has never been part of the Wikipedia ethos.
I think more summary material is needed - not just an assessment of how restrictive laws are, but general descriptions of the different types of laws that exist, how they vary among the states, and how prevalent they are. There is a some of this in the lead, but it really needs more. Since this article is already quite long, perhaps it would make sense to move all the summary material to a new "parent" article that would point to this one for the details of each state. The alternative to that woukd be to break out the state details into separate articles, but I think that would result in too many small articles.
-- JPMcGrath (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
As explained in more detail in my previous comment, I'm convinced that the Brady Campaign state scorecard (1) violates the Neutral Point Of View policy, by giving higher scores to states that have what Brady considers to be more restrictive laws, and (2) is not a good overall indication of how restrictive a state's gun laws are, because it gives too much weight to how many different types of gun control laws a state has, and not enough weight to specific types of gun laws, such as restrictions on concealed carry, local gun bans, and licensing of firearms owners.
I would encourage other editors to add their opinions to this discussion. The more editors who participate, the better, in my view.
— Mudwater (Talk) 01:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
It's the point values that bother you? There are only two directions the points could go in, higher for more restrictive or higher for less restrictive. If you think the point values show POV, I will gladly remove them from the legend.
You have given your personal opinion that the assessment of restrictiveness in not good, but that is just your personal opinion. You have not shown any source that agrees with you. Will you please provide some?
-- JPMcGrath (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • This has no place in the article. It is the product of an advocacy group and solely based on their opinion. As an advocacy group, they are not neutral. They have a definate agenda and their products will advance that agenda. Putting it here in a graphic form draws attention to it (which draws WP:UNDUE attention to their opinion). 02:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, they are not at all neutral on whether restrictions on guns are a good thing, and the graphic does not in any way endorse their position on that. The graphic shows their assessment of the restrictiveness of gun laws, and they have every reason to provide an accurate assessment. I have not seen any reliable source that suggests that assessment is not reasonable.
As for WP:UNDUE, it does not say that an article should not give undue weight to the opinions of any particular group. Rather it says that an article should not give undue weight to a particular aspect of the subject matter. Certainly, the restrictiveness of gun laws is an appropriate aspect to cover in this article.
-- JPMcGrath (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • But it shows their opinion, based solely on their stated agenda of stricter gun control. In other words, if it doesn't agree with their views, it scores low. That's not even remotely neutral. There is no objective, measureable standard. It's not tied to crimes rates, deaths or anything else that can be quantified. It is solely opinion. Presenting their opinion, in an eye catching graphic format, does given under weight to their POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Their opinion that stricter gun laws are good is certainly not objective, but I think their assessment of the restrictiveness of the laws is. Their goal is to restrict gun usage and it does not further their agenda to skew this assessment. Since some might interpret the score values to mean that higher numbers are better, I have removed them from the legend. Believe me, my intent in posting this graphic is not to endorse their ideas; rather it is to show which states have freer access to guns and which do not. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • How could it possibly be objective? Strict gun laws equal high scores. High score equals better. In their opinion, stricter is better. It presents the opinion of an advocacy group. And yes, it is in their interest to skew the results. If they rate a state poorly, then they sell wolf tickets about how "unsafe" a state is while they lobby for stricter laws (while ignoring that the states in the dark green tend to have lower crime rates). If you fetched a NRA type graphic showing the opposite, then it might be balanced. Otherwise, their opinions are being presented in a unduly weighted manner. You removed the legend? What good is a graphic that doesn't tell us what it means? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
This argument based on NPOV seems tortured and off base. The NPOV policy applies to the whole article in aggregate. A quick scan of the footnotes shows a disproportionate number of pro-gun references, to the NRA-ILA, CarryConcealed.net, USACarry.com, and many others. The policy requirement here is a net neutral balance of POV sourcing, and the addition of some Brady counterbalance to the undue weight given to pro-gun sources actually would improve the NPOV balance here. Indeed, this entire article seems so far skewed off-center of POV balance point it needs some serious editing to bring it back to a neutral balance point. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Replying to other points in the thread above. The Brady graphic is describing strength of gun trafficing laws. They order this by weakest to strongest. There is nothing about other types of gun laws. There is nothing about whether weaker is good or if stronger is bad. This is not an argument about good law or bad law, it is simply a rating of weak law versus strong law regarding gun trafficking. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
your argument against the card is like arguing that quoting the score of a sports game, from one of the team's website is POV, because it lists that team's score first. The only difference is the "scorecard" in question rates laws in a subjective manner. any sort of rating system like this is open to inaccuracies, but I am not sure how skewing it would advance the Bradly Campaign's cause. Anyway, the focus should be on how they rank states. since the scorecard focuses on trafficking than it might be easily measured. after all, Wisconsin is green, despite having no concealed carry law 67.176.160.47 (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That makes no sense. A teams score is a matter of fact. The score was whatever it was. This is a matter of opinion. The activist Brady campaign gives their opinion that a state has strong or weak laws based on criteria they made up themselves. That's hardly neutral. And yes, I'd say the same thing if this were the NRA version of the same map going up without balance. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

@Mudwater and Niteshift: I agree w/ McGrath;s June 7 edit. All of the other graphics in the article are by 'Carry Rights' organizations and at least one uses potentially POV language. However they serve an informative purpose. As does the Brady graphic, which is candid about its intent. Please allow it co-exist w/ the other graphs. It is information, like the 'Carry' graphs. If not, familiarize yourselves with the Conflict Resolution Process. Tapered (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The disagreement having already been posted on the Neutral Point Of View Noticeboard here, the article has now been submitted to Requests For Mediation here. I have agreed to participate in the mediation process, as have JPMcGrath and several other editors. Niteshift36 has not replied, despite several posts on his talk page, and has not commented on this article talk page since March 18th, so I'm guessing that he's not currently interested in pursuing this discussion. Unfortunately, SaltyBoatr is not agreeing to the mediation process, which is going to make it more difficult to achieve a collaborate solution to the content dispute. P.S. While I disagree with you about the NPOV question, I appreciate your input to the discussion. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Niteshift36 has now agreed to the mediation. Now only Saltyboatr has not agreed. But I still hope that he will agree to mediation of this dispute, it might help us make some progress with this discussion. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

AEB1

I will take you at your word then. This article has 300 references. Ignoring the 200+ that point to primary sources. The remaining sources predominately point to websites of gun rights organizations. After checking for five minutes, I only found one reference[4] to a source opposing gun violence. What is your opinion about the imbalance of sourcing in this article? SaltyBoatr (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
That completely depends on the nature of what is being cited. If it is matters of fact, does it matter terribly whether or not the source is pro or anti-gun ownership? If we are saying that "Kansas has a X day waiting period", does it matter if that came from either side? It is a matter of fact, so I'd say it doesn't matter. Either they do or they do not have said waiting period. If we are using pro-gun sources to cite matters of opinion, then there is an issue. If you find a pro-gun source being used to support an assertion that the law in a particular state is "good" or "strong", you'd have a point. Also, your use of the phrase "opposing gun violence" is hardly neutral sounding. The implication is that if you disagree with someone like Brady et al, you support "gun violence". That's absurd. Supporting the right to own firearms (whether for sport or defense) is not "supporting gun violence". Nor is supporting the right to defend oneself. Many of these orgs are more accurately anti-gun, not just anti-gun violence. Taking away a hunting rifle isn't about preventing violence to any person. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
OK then. At least we agree that the Brady Campaign is an acceptable source for matters of fact. When I look at their scorecard it appears that it draws from factual data. Either a state does background checks or it does not. That is a yes:no question. I am guessing that your problem is with whether doing background checks is fairly described as "weak" or as "strong". That seems moot and a straw man argument because when you check the graphic[5] it doesn't say "weak" or "strong", rather it says "more restrictive" or "less restrictive" which are objective statements of fact and not statements of opinion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
More restrictive or less restrictive than the other states. This is a neutral statement of fact. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • No, it's not because it still requires Brady assessment over whether or not a specific states laws are restrictive enough or not. There aren't enough colors in that graphic to address the variations between the states, so an certain amount of opinion is required on their part. That's where the issue is. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Summarizing the discussion above, Mudwater and Niteshift36 have argued that the graphic expresses the opinion of Brady Campaign. Myself and JPMcGrath don't see that simply stating whether laws are restrictive is opinion. Indeed, depending on personal point of view, "restrictive" might be good, or equally, it might be bad. Clearly this is not a question of opinion, but rather it is a helpful summary of gun law status. Restoring the graphic now. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

  • And I removed it. This sure hasn't been decided. I don't see a clear consensus here. Then, to make it more POV promoting, you put the graphic at the top of the page, not down where it was in the body. Bottom line: It is Brady's OPINION on what is restrictive enough for them and it promotes their POV. If you want to take this to the NPOV noticeboard, I'll be happy to go. But don't arbitarily decide that this matter is closed, because there damn sure isn't a clear consensus. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Rather than edit warring this, could you address the points above? Your argument as I read it is: Statements of "weak" versus "strong" are opinions, and opinion violates NPOV. Yet there have been no statements of "weak" or "strong", therefore you are arguing about a straw man. Please make your case based on logic, and avoid edit war. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Before you start throwing around terms like "edit war", why don't we address your false consensus? 2 editors saying one thing, 2 saying the opposite. Yet somehow, you took it upon yourself to decide that the disputed material needs to not only be put in the article, but go at the top. Would you care to explain that to me? How about if I stop answering your questions over and over and you answer some for me. What does that graphic contribute to the article? What facts can be gleaned from looking at that graphic? If one state has a 3 day wait and no guns in public places law and another has a guns in public places law but no wait, are they rated the same or does Brady put more weight on one issue than the other? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Per the reasoning given by JPMcGrath above, the article could benefit from "an overall picture of the gun laws across the country" in summary. The article has too many trees to see the forest, and a broad summary as conveyed in that graph makes for a better article. The readers can read down below to get the detail you describe. The opening of the article should be for a summary. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That graphic doesn't give an overall picture of gun laws. It gives a picture of gun control laws, a set specifically chosen by Brady to represent the state of gun control laws, not gun laws. That is your strawman. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I came here following the request on WP:NPOVN#Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_.28by_state.29. Having looked at the discussion and the map in question (which I take to be this one), I think the map is a useful addition to the article. It looks like the result of a competent evaluation of gun control state laws, and it is properly attributed to the originating organization. I don't understand the NPOV concern. The map shows less restrictive laws in green, more restrictive ones in red. If anything, this projects a "green is ok, red is a problem" message, not the other way round. I could see exactly the same map produced by the NRA, in exactly the same colours. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It isn't a "competent evaluation" because it is a listing of selected control laws, carefully selected as a measure of something the activist organization is advocating, to "prove" their point of view. It is an agenda driven evaluation. And you don't see a NRA map because it would be biased as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • You miss the point. I'm not suggesting to balance this map with one from the NRA. I suggest that if you see just the map and the basic legend, you wouldn't be able to tell if its from the NRA or from the Brady campaign. For me that indicates sufficient neutrality. What point do you think the group is trying to prove? "Gun freedom is still healthy in most states, but increasingly encroached upon in New England and California"? "Most of America sees no need for restrictive gun control laws?" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • And you're missing the point. Let's make it simple. The map has to be attributed to Brady, therefore a reader knows it is based on their assessment. They are not neutral. Their product is not neutral. Without balance, it gives a bias. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but that's nonsense. Attribution creates neutral statements - instead of "X", which may be debatable, we say "Y says X", which is a simple and easy to verify fact. And I have seen no factual argument why the map should not be neutral - "because it's prepared by the Brady campaign" is not an argument. 2+2 equals 4, even if Saddam claims it. To me this looks like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure I understand the argument against posting this. The Brady Scorecard is not scored arbitrarily, it's actually based on a set of very specific criteria that are scored the same way for every state (and that information can certainly be included in sourcing the table). So I'm not quite sure how bias plays in here. Furthermore, I don't think anyone would argue that the Brady Scorecard is an accurate depiction of how strong gun laws are from state to state. Conversely, states at the bottom of this list would rightfully be seen to allow the most "gun freedom" for residents. Forward Thinkers (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, Niteshift36 suggested[6] above that we ask the NPOV notice board for their opinion, and we did, and they see no NPOV problem. Also, another editor has shown up seeing now who sees no NPOV problem. Presently the consensus here weighs in as 4:2 that there is no NPOV problem. I don't expect that Niteshift36 will like it, but hopefully he can respect the process at Wikipedia includes room for disagreements where decisions are discussed on the talk page, and consensus is followed. Putting the graph back in. I encourage Niteshift36 to not edit war against this 4:2 consensus. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • And I encourage you to stop looking at this like a freakin race. You call it a consensus after a couple of hours? You can't let this run for a day and get some other opinions? So the first 2 people that came over agreed with you and you go running off, putting it in. That's just absurd. You put the RfC up to get opinions, then don't even give it 24 hours? At this point, you're making this into some sort of contest about who can get people to weigh in the fastest. Normally a RfC runs for a few DAYS, not a couple of hours. Relax, breath and take your own advice not to edit war. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The burden is on you. You have been asked several times (see above) to explain yourself and your faulty logic, and you have not yet done so. Waiting. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I invite other editors to read what Niteshift36 has written down below, see this diff, and judge whether this is a response to the questions about his logic raised above. This is simply delaying the matter. Time has come to put the graph back in. Are there other editors willing to cooperate with this process? SaltyBoatr (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Once again, you see this as some sort of race, like it has to be completed in a certain period of time. RfC auto expire in a month. You tried to end it in a couple of hours. Is it so urgent that you can't give it a few days? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

AEB2

I haven't said anything on this talk page for about 10 days, but I'm going to chime in again now. To be honest, I'm pretty disappointed by this whole discussion. Until now, this article has been a model of NPOV. The article just summarizes the gun laws of each state, in a neutral way. While the neutrality has not always been perfectly achieved, that's been the goal. To me it's painfully obvious that the Brady Campaign State Scorecard (1) presents an extremely non-neutral point of view, and (2) is by no means a fair or objective measure of how restrictive various states' gun laws are. I've explained why I think this in more detail in several posts earlier in this section. I feel quite strongly that, in this section and the two sections below, Niteshift36 has done a really great job of explaining these two points, and some other points as well, at considerable length, and directly answering the objections of other editors, and I'd like to thank him for his patient and articulate efforts. Frankly, he's a lot more patient and articulate than I am. Again and again he has presented well thought out arguments that support these points, and again and again a few editors keep saying that he has not answered their objections, when in fact he clearly has. The more I think about this, the more I'm taken aback by the claim that adding the Brady Campaign State Scorecard map is objective or not a violation of NPOV. I have seen many POV edit wars on firearms related articles such as Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, Right to keep and bear arms, and Gun politics in the United States. I was really hoping that we could avoid these time consuming and tedious disputes in this particular article, by making it all about "just the facts, ma'am". And I am still hoping that we can do that. If you look at the long edit history of this article, you can see that many editors have worked hard to summarize gun laws in an informative, helpful, and neutral way, and I myself have contributed more than a little to this effort. We have not always succeeded, but that was our goal. I hope that that can continue to be the goal of this article. So, please, folks. If you think that the neutrality of the article can be improved, by removing or fixing statements that are biased or unsupported, by all means let's talk about it, because no doubt there is room for improvement. But, no Brady Campaign State Scorecard map, thank you very much. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Nightshift has been patient, but I cannot agree that he has directly answered my objections. More specifically, I summarized the arguments that NPOV and UNDUE justifies removing the graphic, and I think they clearly were lacking. Perhaps you will explain how you think they apply.
WP:NPOV says that "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". It also says that "material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is 'POV'". So how does this justify removing the graphic?
WP:UNDUE says that "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject". I have argued that an assessment of the restrictiveness of state gun laws in an article about state gun laws is relevant, and one assessment does not constitute undue weight. Do you think UNDUE applies?
If neither of the above applies, what is the justification for removing it?
-- JPMcGrath (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I've been trying to illustrate the NPOV problem, which leads to the undue issue. You simply don't like how I'm leading you to it. You refuse to look at the assessment itself, only the final product. Instead, you want a sound byte answer and that's it. Fine. Undue is simple. You're presenting only the assessment of one anti-gun activist group. You're not presenting the assessment of the other side. That's about as simple as it can be put. Where is the graphic that shows the assessment of a neutral party? Where is the graphic that shows the assessment of the pro-gun ownership POV. Show me where those are and how I've been missing them and I'll shut up. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
You keep talking about WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, but you ignore what the policy actually says. I can find nothing in them that would support removing the graphic. If you think that they do support removal, please quote the part that you think does.
You are correct that I have added the assessment of only one group. As I said before, if there is a different perspective that you think should be included, you should add it. I even offered to add one myself if you would point me to it. You have not done that, because you cannot find another perspective from a reliable source. That is not at all surprising, because the assessment is not very controversial.
-- JPMcGrath (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not because the Brady one is not controversial. It's because pro-ownership orgs don't tend towards "assessments". They're more concerned with what the laws actually say and what they actually mean, not how they feel about them. The other problem here is that we have 4 different discussion going on about essentially the same issue. So when I answer your question in another section (liek I did today), you give me more "you haven't addressed it" in this section. I didn't start any of these sub discussions, but I'm being asked the same damn question over and over in each one, despite having answered it today in another one of these. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the discussion is getting a little out of control. For the record, I did not start any new sections either - I think everything I have said was in direct replay to another post. Part of this is the nature of the beast, but I suspect that the software has something to do with it. Maybe the LiquidThreads extension will help if and when it gets here.
As for the Brady assessment, I think it is not controversial, and should not be. Do you think what it shows is wrong, or do you just object to it because it is from Brady?
-- JPMcGrath (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I really have addressed your question. My objection isn't based on the source, it's based on the content/criteria used, which are biased toward their agenda. I tried using one specific example to illustrate what I was talking about, but you didn't really address that point, rather you kept asking me the same question over and over. To be honest, I've become very aggravated with this discussion. I tried my best good faith effort to dial it back and reset a little, thinking we were going to have a productive discussion about what Salty thought should go in the tables and how he thought it should be incorporated. But I was clearly a fool for doing so because, if anything.....well forget it, I'm not going to give someone an excuse to go crying to WQA. Do whatever you two want to do to this article. I'm past giving a damn. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
We need to try to keep personalities and personal opinions out of this. Mudwater weighed in above, thanks. The core problem here is that by policy: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". The articles fails in this regard. And, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject", again it fails. SaltyBoatr (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I said nothing that relates to personalities. What I talked about was addressing objections. I have repeatedly asked him to address my objections to his claims that WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE apply, and he has not done so. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "He" has.......and "he" wishes that he could draw you a big arrow to show you because you and Salty have split this whole damn mess into 4 seperate discussions, then want me to answer the same question over and over. Stop with your "he hasn't addressed it" nonsense. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Smoke aside, I agree that Niteshift36 has not yet addressed the applicability of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE as requested by JPMcGrath. It is time to conclude that either he cannot, or will not do so. How much longer must we put up with the evasion? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • (And no, I didn't indent). Big surprise, one says something and the second member of the tag team parrots the same thing. What's actually starting to piss me off here is that the both of you have made this into 3 more discussions, then when something is answered one place, you ask it again in the other one and act like you never heard an answer. Both of you have just said that I have "evaded" and "refused" to address the question. Both of you are wrong. [7] (I'll put this in bold print and maybe you'll actually see it this time) "Undue is simple. You're presenting only the assessment of one anti-gun activist group. You're not presenting the assessment of the other side. That's about as simple as it can be put. Where is the graphic that shows the assessment of a neutral party? Where is the graphic that shows the assessment of the pro-gun ownership POV. Show me where those are and how I've been missing them and I'll shut up." Did you get that? Do you see where I told you why I have an issue with the undue portion? Wait, let me tell you again, so maybe, just maybe, you two won't repeat the same false allegation. I said "Undue is simple. You're presenting only the assessment of one anti-gun activist group. You're not presenting the assessment of the other side. That's about as simple as it can be put. Where is the graphic that shows the assessment of a neutral party? Where is the graphic that shows the assessment of the pro-gun ownership POV. Show me where those are and how I've been missing them and I'll shut up.". Did I address my concern about undue? Yes. Did I do it BEFORE you two came in here and claimed, yet again, that I didn't? Yes. Will either of you bother to say "oops, I missed that"? Hell no. Neither of you will conceed that I did address it. You might not like the answer. You might not even think it went far enough. But it WAS addressed and you both were completely wrong to state (again) that it was never addressed and that I've "evaded" blah, blah, blah. Just to make sure you don't miss it, here it is again: "Undue is simple. You're presenting only the assessment of one anti-gun activist group. You're not presenting the assessment of the other side. That's about as simple as it can be put. Where is the graphic that shows the assessment of a neutral party? Where is the graphic that shows the assessment of the pro-gun ownership POV. Show me where those are and how I've been missing them and I'll shut up.". Now, go ahead, divert off onto something else, start a 5th sub-discussion of the same issue and then accuse me there of not answering the question in that section. And to think I actually was stupid enough to believe that we were starting to make progress in one of those sections.Niteshift36 (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
More diversion, your personal opinion is not relevant here. Let's try again: Can you quote the specific words from the WP:NPOV policy that you are invoking? SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
That's not diversion. You are being completely unreasonable. It is my opinion about how it violates undue. You want some cut and paste bullshit and you refuse to accept any answer that isn't in the format you want it in. Further, I was addressing WP:UNDUE, not NPOV. You didn't even bother to read the answer enough to get that part right. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually you are addressing what you wish the WP:NPOV says. (and look again, UNDUE is a subset of NPOV) Again, quote the specific wording from the policy you are invoking. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Niteshift36, could you please quote the NPOV policy wording you are invoking? SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Being a frequent editor of this article, my opinion has been recently solicited by a party to this dispute, so here goes: I agree with JPMcGrath's assessment on 09:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC). In fact, many gunnies I know simply take the Brady scores and invert them to get an idea of how good a state's gun laws are. However, while not actually biased, citing the Brady Campaign ratings could still easily give many people the impression of bias, and, as they say, Caesars wife must be above suspicion. The Brady stuff should probably go, at least until it's counterbalanced with ratings from a pro-gun org.

--Hoplophile (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The irony is that neither Hoplophile, nor Niteshift36 seem to be actually reading the WP:NPOV policy which says we must give equal coverage from all significant POVs in the article, even those we disagree with. Presently there are no references to Brady, while there are scores of references to pro-gun groups. This excess referencing to pro-gun sources isn't an impression of bias, rather it is manifest bias. Further, these editors doggedly push to keep even a single reference to Brady out of the article. Using the 'Caesars wife' logic that Brady's reputation would besmirch this article. Further evidence of editor bias here. This article doesn't belong to pro-gun hoplophilic editors. Quit acting like it does. It belongs to Wikipedia in general. SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The references from the pro-gun groups are way down on the bottom of the page where hardly anyone ever looks. The Brady map was plastered right on top of the page where it's the very first thing a person sees. This being the case, I really think we need to be more careful with it. Someone should find state ratings from a pro-gun group and post a map of that right next to the Brady map; then everyone will be happy and we'll avoid both real bias as well as appearance of bias. Sound good?--Hoplophile (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to negotiate, this is a breath of fresh air. I wonder though, why is the Brady graphic "real bias". It seems that the biggest problem now is simply the use of the word "Brady", which echo's the demonizing of Brady seen in the pro-gun advocacy press. Is there neutral sourcing that says that "Brady" is such a bad word or is this mostly the opinion of the pro-gun people? I don't see that what is being said in that graphic that is inherently controversial. We all agree for instance that California is the most restrictive state, etc.. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, you're preaching to the choir on that. As I stated before, I don't think that the map was biased, but it would give many people the spurious impression of bias. If someone posted the same type of map with NRA or GOA ratings, without an opposing view from an anti-gun group, I'd feel the same way. Hoplophile (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
You are getting to the crux of the issue then, as you put it: "impression of bias". As near as I can tell, that involves advocacy readers bringing their acquired impressions here. Is this "impression of bias" found in any Wikipedia policy? I looked at WP:NPOV and don't see it. If it is not based on policy, then your objection is without policy merit and we should restore the graphic. Asking again, could you please cite the specific wording in the WP:NPOV policy on which you are basing your claim. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Define "bias." In my opinion, if a large percentage of visitors to a page would percieve something as biased, then it should probably be considered biased.
In any case, I just went and found these great maps from opencarry.org, a pro-gun site. Let's put some of those maps up, put the Brady map back up, and then we'll call it even. Sound good? Hoplophile (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Summary! Excellent! That is exactly what I would like to see. I have searched for this kind of summary information, but have not found it. Thanks, Hoplophile! I hope we can reach a consensus here.
I think it would make sense create a "Summary" section at the top with sub-sections describing each issue area along with each map. I can easily produce the map images, but probably would not be the best person to write the summary. Any volunteers for writing the text?
-- JPMcGrath (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
After being away for two days, I expected to find a significant backlog of comments to read through. Nothing? What do people think about Hoplophile's suggestion? -- JPMcGrath (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree that a large number of references to pro-gun groups is evidence of manifest bias. Just as Brady is a reliable source of information on the restrictiveness of gun laws, groups such as the NRA/ILA are reliable sources for information on gun laws. In both cases, there is no reason to suggest that their opinions on policy would skew the information they provide.
As for positions on the page, the map was placed at the top of the page because it is summary information and that belongs at the top. The other information is more state-level detail, and that belongs towards the bottom. The placement is appropriate in both cases.
If someone wants to measure the prominence of material by the "good guys" and the "bad guys", however they decide who is bad and good, they would find a small amount of information from the anti-gun side in a more prominent position and a much larger amount of information from the pro-gun side in a less prominent position. That sounds somewhat balanced to me.
I understand the concern about first impressions by people who might look at this less rationally and have a "knee-jerk" reaction to a group they do not like. While it might make sense to make some changes in the presentation of information in order to lessen such reactions, I think that removing useful information would be completely counter to the Wikipedia ethos, and it would clearly violate WP:NPOV.
I would certainly favor the inclusion of counterbalancing information from a pro-gun group, although I suspect that ratings from a pro-gun group would be essentially the same. Just as with ACU / ADA ratings, this is not controversial.
-- JPMcGrath (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
So when is enough enough? This discussion goes on for pages, and those opposed to the graphic give personal preference reasons and fail or refuse to give specific policy based reasons for their objections. The article fails a core policy issue here is that we must represent all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Including a non-controversial graph sourced to the Brady Center is a small step towards fixing this NPOV policy failure. Not to mention, the article would benefit from the fair overview this graphic will add to the article summary. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
It's getting there. I think that someone needs to quote some specific language in Wikipedia policy (or guideline) that supports its removal. If that does not happen within a day, I think it would be reasonable to re-insert it. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

AEB3

SaltyBoatr, what you're saying is completely incorrect. Here's why. This article is a summary of gun laws in the United States, by state. It's all about what the gun laws are, and there are not opposing views, to be balanced, on this subject. I'll give you an example. The article says that in Idaho, no law may "permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony." Either that's true, or it's not true, there are no opposing views on the subject. In fact it is true, and the statement has two references, one from the NRA, which is a pro gun rights group, and one from the LCAV, which is a pro gun control group. But both groups are reliable references for what the law says. Whether they are pro gun rights or pro gun control is irrelevant for the purpose of referencing the statement in the article, and the same is true for all the other references. Therefore your whole analysis on this talk page of how many references are from pro gun rights organizations vs. pro gun control organizations is completely irrelevant, and your statement that the article currently has a pro gun rights bias is completely false. By contrast, the Brady Campaign State Scorecard is an opinion about how restrictive -- and therefore, in the Brady Campaign's view, how good -- the gun laws of different states are. As I and other editors have explained at length in this discussion, whether you're willing to admit that we've explained it or not, the Scorecard is definitely not an objective measure of how restrictive states' gun laws are. On the contrary, it presents a highly questionable and highly flawed opinion of the restrictiveness of the states' laws, and in fact it is extremely controversial in this regard, quite aside from the Brady Campaign's strong pro gun control bias. In conclusion, the State Scorecard has absolutely no place in this article. Furthermore, the "POV" and "Synthesis" tags should be removed from the article, because the article has an extremely neutral point of view, and does not contain any previously unpublished synthesis of ideas -- and this will continue to be true as long as the State Scorecard is not added. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You make your point clear, and I hear it. Still, what you are saying amounts to an assertion that Brady is a flawed and biased organization, therefore they should not be included. Where does the WP:NPOV policy say that? Please quote the specific policy wording now. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." That's the basic concept, which needs to be understood in the context of each article. For an article like Political arguments of gun politics in the United States, it would probably mean giving roughly equal weight to the views of pro gun rights and pro gun control organizations and politicians, because that's the subject of the article. The Brady state scorecard might possibly have a place in an article like that, if balanced by opposing views. But this article is about the gun laws themselves, so, to present the material from a neutral point of view, fairly and without bias, non-factual (and highly debatable) opinions about the gun laws, such as the Brady state scorecard, should be left out entirely. That will observe the wording of the policy, quoted here, and will also observe the spirit of the policy, which is that articles should strive for neutrality, and not be subject to extraneous POV advocacy. — Mudwater (Talk) 15:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The Brady assessment is about the restrictiveness of state gun laws, so I think it does belong here. If it were about whether more restrictive is good or bad, I would agree that it belongs elsewhere, but anything relating to that has been left out of the graphic.
I disagree that the Brady assessment is "highly debatable"; rather I think it is uncontroversial. It is easy to find reliable sources that disagree with Brady's political preferences, but I cannot find any that disagree with its assessment. If you want to make that claim, don't you need to show some controversy? I know that you and Niteshift36 say you disagree with it, but where are the reliable sources?
-- JPMcGrath (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
If I wanted to say in an article that the Brady state scorecard was controversial, I would need to provide reliable sources for that statement, but that's not what I want. My goal is to keep this article neutral, and avoid POV advocacy, by leaving the scorecard out of it completely. As I've said, the article is currently neutral because it describes the gun laws, without offering a subjective opinion about them. And I've already explained in several posts why the scorecard is just that, a subjective opinion. But, for your reference, here's an editorial in the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, called "Gun Control Laws Not All Ineffective", that has several criticisms of the Brady scorecard. As they say, the Brady Campaign rates states on how well each state conforms to Brady's own recommendations, and not on statistical evidence of gun-related crimes being low or high, which the newspaper thinks would be a better measure of gun laws. The editorial goes on to further criticize the scorecard for putting too much emphasis on requiring background checks at gun shows, and not enough emphasis on loading indicators or childproof safety locks, which, the editorial contends, would be more effective in reducing gun violence. "P.S." You won't be surprised to hear that the NRA is also critical of the Brady scorecard. Their main complaint seems to be a correlation between less restrictive gun laws and lower rates of violent crime. But, again, that's the NRA's opinion about gun laws, which should also be left out of this article. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
In both of those articles, the writers argue that the policies that Brady advocates are ineffective at curbing gun violence. The title of the first one, "Gun control laws not all ineffective", speaks for itself. The NRA/ILA article says that eliminating restrictive gun laws that Brady advocates has reduced crime. However, they do not argue that their assesment is far off in terms of the restrictiveness of gun laws, which is what I have been saying is not controversial. I believe that is because they agree with the assessment, just as the ACU and the ADA agree with each others' assesments.
I understand that you want to avoid POV, and I support that. But I do not think the Brady assessment is POV. What I want to see is summary "big picture" information; more forest and not all trees. I don't think that needs to be controversial.
-- JPMcGrath (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
In your previous post you asked for a reliable reference showing that the Brady Campaign state scorecard is controversial as a measure of the restrictiveness of gun laws. The newspaper editorial is such a reference, because it criticizes the methodology of the scorecard. The editorial says, among other things, that the scorecard is not a good measure of the restrictiveness of gun laws, because it puts too much emphasis on background checks at gun shows, and not enough emphasis on loaded chamber indicators and childproof locks. It also says that meeting Brady's recommendations is not an objective measure of the restrictiveness of states' laws. As I said in my previous post, a reference is not needed for this discussion, because Niteshift36 and I have already shown in great detail that the scorecard is not objective and also is not NPOV, but I provided this one anyway, as you requested, and it does support what I'm saying. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's wrong. First, a newspaper editorial is not a reliable source for anything but opinion. You state a fact ("it is controversial"). Secondly, while the editorial does pick some nits, its not even particularly negative or critical. It even suggests it might be a good idea to follow some of the implied suggestions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
One of the points I've been making in this discussion section is that the Brady Campaign state scorecard is itself an opinion, and for this and other reasons should be excluded from the article. I've been saying that the scorecard is controversial because there is disagreement about whether or not it is an objective measure of the restrictiveness of states' gun laws. JPMcGrath asked for a reference showing that the opinion is controversial. As I said in my two previous posts, a reference is not needed for this discussion, and, to build on what you just said, it's an opinion about an opinion, but it does refute what JPMcGrath said, by showing that the Brady scorecard is in fact controversial. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Mudwater, I think you are conflating the Brady assessment of restrictiveness with the overall scorecard. The Corpus Christi editorial does criticize its use of background checks at gun shows, but in the very next sentence it says that "criminals never seem to have a hard time bypassing the law to acquire firearms anyway". It is not saying that background checks are not restrictive, but rather that the background checks are ineffective.

I looked at the graphic in question. The primary thing that struck me was the source, but I agree that the source would be unlikely to be overly biased in its ratings.

I do think the arguments about a score have merit, though. 'Higher' is usually construed as 'better' because it is consistent with our educational system. However, I also note 'higher' is shown in red, while 'lower' is green. This would tend to move in a contrary direction, because red is often associated with a warning, or something to avoid.

My suggestion: If possible, make the five classes shades of blue through green (going either direction.) Replace the middle scores with a two-headed arrow that points to the 'most restrictive' and 'least restrictive' descriptions at either end of the now-scoreless scale. Note, that many males cannot distinguish red from green in any case. 174.17.63.102 (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand your claim that it "says that meeting Brady's recommendations is not an objective measure of the restrictiveness of states' laws". I cannot find anything in the editorial that says that. Would you quote the text you are referring to?
Let me ask you this: do you have major disagreements with Brady's assessments? For example, Brady rates Oklahoma, Louisiana and Kentucky as the least restrictive states. Do you think that is close, or do you think they are highly restrictive? Brady rates California as the most restrictive. Do you think that is wrong and that it is actually one of the least restrictive? Do you think that this assessment is all that wrong?
-- JPMcGrath (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
(1) Other editors have suggested that the overall scorecard is an objective measure of restrictiveness and that therefore the graphic is appropriate for the article. I disagree. (2) The text you're asking about from the editorial is, "The Brady Campaign rates states not on their gun-related crime or violence statistics but on their compliance with Brady gun control recommendations. For example..." The point being that compliance with the Brady recommendations is not the best way to measure restrictiveness. (3) Yes, I have major disagreements with Brady's assessments. For a full explanation, please refer to several of my posts earlier in this talk page section, especially the paragraph that includes the text, "the scorecard is highly questionable as a rating of how restrictive or non-restrictive states' gun laws are." — Mudwater (Talk) 19:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Mudwater, just above[8] pointed to policy "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Can we focus on this as a common agreement and foundation here among all editors?
1) "as far as possible without bias", agreed? Can I ask that we no longer use the biased reframing of the Brady Campaign. They are discussing their viewpoint as to laws to "prevent gun violence". When editors here miss-characterize that as "gun control" that is editorial induced bias. "Gun control" <> "prevention of gun violence". Hopefully we agree that editors should "as far as possible" avoid introducing bias.
2) "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Is there any question that the Brady Scorecard is a significant view published by a reliable source?
I suggest that we can bridge disagreements here if we pay close attention to our shared agreement to follow policy here. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
As already explained by Niteshift36 in his post above, dated "14:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)", terms such as "prevention of gun violence" and "opposing gun violence" are more biased, not less biased, when speaking of pro gun control groups like the Brady Campaign. Furthermore, you and I, along with other editors, have already discussed this at some length, at Template talk:Gun politics interest groups in the United States#Term "gun control" and template section names. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. SaltyBoatr and I also discussed this on my talk page -- JPMcGrath (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

How could it possibly be biased to call an organization by what they call themselves? Remember the policy here is "All Wikipedia articles must be written...as far as possible without bias". Anytime an editor does what you suggest, that is to relabel the description of an organization to make a point favored by one of the POV's, that is editorial bias. SaltyBoatr (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe this is really related to this discussion, and besides, I answered this argument on my talk page -- JPMcGrath (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The brady map shows Wisconsin and Illinois as being moderate. When it comes to handgun laws they are the 2 most restrictive states in the country. This is my first time on this site but it seems a map that shows shall issue, may issue, etc. would be more appropriate. I agree the brady map is no more neutral than me posting a NRA map showing which states have higher crime. Some should post this map http://www.moccw.org/images/ccwmap.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by McL-McL (talk • contribs) 17:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

JP: Brady Campaign does have an interest in misrepresenting firearms law, and does just that on a regular basis. The most obvious example of this is their push for "assault weapons" bans. If you must have a source for where they misrepresent, here you go: http://www.shootfirstlaw.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.205.103 (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

AEB4

Removed "scorecard" of the Brady campaign again. The Brady Campaign is an advocacy group that is anti-gun and is not a reliable source for neutral information regarding gun law in the United States. Stop adding this please Rapier (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As was discussed earlier, the scorecard presents an assessment of the restrictiveness of gun laws. The fact that Brady thinks restrictive is good does not make the assessment biased. Groups that are diametrically opposed on an issue, such as the ADA and the ACU, generally agree on assessments. As Hoplophile put it above, "many gunnies I know simply take the Brady scores and invert them to get an idea of how good a state's gun laws are". -- JPMcGrath (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
It makes no difference whatsoever what your opinion of gun laws is, this graph is advertising the opinion of an advocacy group, and that has no business in an encyclopedic listing of actual gun law, as per WP:SOAP. If you want to put this in the "Brady Campaign" article, that's great, but it has no business here. I will be happy to take this to arbitration if needed. (EDIT) For the record: an NRA listing of how "restrictive" gun laws are in various states would be likewise inapppropriate, due to the fact that it is advertising the opinion of an advocacy group. To quote Sgt. Friday, "Just the facts." Rapier (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
If you feel that taking this to arbitration is the best course, that is OK with me. In the meantime, since this was discussed at length earlier, and the result was to keep the graphic, it should stay until there is some change in consensus. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Forgive the incorrect proceedure name. I put in a request for mediation. You, Salty, Mudwater, Niteshift, and Hoplophile should be getting notifications within the next couple of days. Rapier (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
OK. I am somewhat surprised that you chose to take this to mediation so quickly, given that you have barely participated in the discussion. I think it would have made more sense to respond to some of the points I and others have made that I do not think were adequately addressed. However, if you feel that is the best approach, I am willing to participate in it.
I note that one person you left out was Stephan Schulz. While he was not a major participant in the earlier discussions, he has made more posts on the substance of the issue than you have, so I think he should be included.
— JPMcGrath (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I have not received any kind of notification on this. Still waiting. — JPMcGrath (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Note to interested editors: A discussion about this is now taking place at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Gun laws in the United States (by state). — Mudwater (Talk) 19:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

To summarize my previous posts, and those of several other editors: The Brady Campaign State Scorecard should not be added to the article. The scorecard is a clear violation of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, because it advocates the views of a pro-gun-control organization. Furthermore it does not by any means present an objective or accurate measure of the relative restrictiveness of the gun laws of various states. To remain both neutral and factual, and avoid advocacy of a particular political agenda, the article should merely describe the gun laws of each state. These points have been discussed at length in this talk page section. While some editors have argued in favor of adding the scorecard to the article, others remain strongly opposed, so there is no consensus for its inclusion. I am therefore removing the scorecard. — Mudwater (Talk) 15:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This was listed at WP:NPOV/N and the determination was that there was no NPOV problem with the map. I am reverting your removal. — JPMcGrath (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the article was listed at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Gun laws in the United States (by state). In response, one editor, Stephan Schulz, posted his opinion above, stating that he thought the map was not an NPOV violation. That's nice, and I appreciate any editor adding to this discussion. However, it is not a "determination", it's just another editor's opinion. Stephan Schulz explained his reasoning, however I and other editors strongly disagree with him. The map is in fact a flagrant violation of NPOV, and has the effect, intentionally or not, of promoting a particular political agenda, Noticeboard posting or not. Additionally the map does not accurately reflect the restrictiveness of different states' gun laws. For these reasons it should not be added to the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 20:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
You say that the map is "a flagrant violation of NPOV", but I do not think that is true. WP:NPOV says:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

It appears to me that your removal of the map is a flagrant violation of this policy. The Brady Scorecard is a significant view published by a reliable source, so it should be represented in the article. Would you please quote the part of WP:NPOV that you believe the map violates?
— JPMcGrath (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
This is not an article detailing the gun control debate, it is an article listing gun laws in various states. The summary map produced by the Brady Campaign is not a "listing of gun laws", it is a "listing of how restrictive gun laws are in the opinion of the Brady Campaign", which is an advocacy group with an anti-gun bias. This falls squarely under "What Wikipedia is not", under the subsection WP:SOAP. Rapier (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
You are correct that this article is not about the gun control debate, but neither is the map. The map simply summarizes the state of gun laws in the states, which is appropriate for an article about gun laws in the states. The map does not in any way advocate for more restrictive or less restrictive gun laws. The fact that the source of the assessment does advocate more restrictive gun laws does not alter that fact. — JPMcGrath (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state/Archive_1&oldid=1171579376"