Talk:Gun politics in the United States

State Organizations

I saw a number of Michigan groups added today, and I wanted to know if the "Organizations" section should be limited to National organizations. I fear that the section could become ridiculous with every chapter of every group, gun club, and every state organization being listed. It is already quite long, perhaps this could be spun into a new page or two (Pro-gun organizations, and Anti-Gun organizations)

The Fort Hood shooting

This comment was removed from the discussion section on the recent Fort Hood shooting episode, with a note from the censor that it's more pertinent to the gun control debate. Maybe so.
It should be noted that as the "Reactions" section of the Fort Hood shooting article presently stands, it is clear that in spite of policy to the effect that "Neither military-issued nor personal weapons may be carried about the base by typical soldiers" and "personal weapons must be kept locked away by the provost marshal," these measures did nothing to prevent the alleged shooter from bringing two personal handguns onto the base, his pockets crammed full of loaded magazines.
Turning Fort Hood into a gun-free zone simply made it into a target-rich environment. If there's any place on the planet where people ought to be capable of minimizing their vulnerability and effectively responding in episodes like this one, it's a military base full of active-duty troops who have all received training in how to think and react under fire.
A more damning indictment of the whole principle of gun control is hard to imagine.
If soldiers can be butchered like this when deliberately prevented from exercising their right to keep and bear arms, how can any of us law-abiding civilians hope to survive when the wolves get in among us? 71.251.131.163 (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Bias (Types of Firearms and others)

The Types of Firearms section seems to rely almost entirely on the work of Earl Kruschke. While this author is quoted as a neutral author on the topic, others disagree, and specifically disagree with several of the key statistics. This section needs to consider other sources to be balanced, currently it seems quite pro-gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.32.250 (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It is desirable to have multiple sources for any section, but FWIW, ABC-CLIO publishes reference materials for school libraries so a pro-gun POV from the source is unlikely.

• Earl R. Kruschke, Gun Control: A Reference Handbook (Contemporary World Issues), ABC-CLIO (1995), ISBN-13: 978-0874366952.
• Gregg Lee Carter, Gun Control in the United States: A Reference Handbook (Contemporary World Issues), ABC-CLIO, (2 edition, 2006), ISBN-13: 978-1851097609.

Krushke's book is listed in Amazon.com with one Editorial Review from the School Library Journal by a Gail Richmond of San Diego Unified Schools, CA. Book appear to be background reference books that contain material that would be useful regardless of the reader's POV. Naaman Brown (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of bias, I removed part of the photo caption of the picture showing a concealed carry traing school advertisement alongside the road. The claim was that this was in a permissive state where no permits are required, yet those few states don't require training at all. Consequently, that cannot be the case for the location of the sign. Logic - please try some on the anti self-defense, anti-firearm side of the issue... for a change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.51.50 (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It is quite common for people to get training above and beyond what they need to get their permit. Magpul and Xe (formerly Blackwater) both make plenty of money off of this, just as examples. I have posted the question on the file's discussion page though, in order to clear things up. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh derp. I went through the page's history and the guy added it. Your logic was flawed to begin with (just because people aren't legally required to buy cars doesn't mean they don't buy them), and the fact that the guy who took the photo said it was in a constitutional carry state kind of seals the deal. See here [1] for info. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say your logic is the more flawed, since most people don't spend a nickle they do not have to unless they are required to do so in order to exercise their rights. Ideally, we might hope for these people to get more than the basics covered by training, but that is unlikely and these motivated persons would seek out training w/o needing a sign along the side of the road, the presence of which in a obviously rural/suburban area (i.e., low-traffic) implies demand sufficient to offer regular classes. Places like Blackwater, FrontSight, etc. really don't teach a great deal about concealment, but mainly about proper use and handling of firearms. Additionally, why are we taking the information the submitter of the photograph gave at face value? It might be Josh Sugarman for all we know and the only inference that could truly be drawn is that the state in which it was found allows concealed carry at all. The presence of the sign is more indicative, in actuality, of a state that regulates concealed carry. We cannot be sure with no area code present on the phone number given. Either accept this as the most likely situation, or delete it entirely until something that proves concealed carry is a mostly unregulated endeavor - something I believe is planted here to perpetuate a bias against concealed carry as being something any yahoo can do - is the most common situation to be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.3.63 (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

MOA img note and MN 624.714, Subd. 17, sec.(e)

Hi Hohum. I'm pretty sure I understand what, and why, your complaint is. Here's how it breaks down. Triple Five Group is a landlord, which leases retail space to businesses. Subdivision 17 concerns posting and trespass in private establishments, including businesses: "Subd. 17.Posting; trespass."

Private establishments are defined in section(b):""Private establishment" means a building, structure, or portion thereof that is owned, leased, controlled, or operated by a nongovernmental entity for a nongovernmental purpose."

This subdivision is specifically not about residences and specifically about other establishments including businesses, stated in Section(d): "This subdivision does not apply to private residences."

The restriction on landlords is described in section(e): "A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests."

Businesses that lease store space are tenants and may post restrictions as they wish. Landlords may neither restrict carry in common areas, nor restrict tenants or their guests from carrying, as per the statute. That means that Triple Five/MOA may not prohibit carry; only its tenants may make that decision for their own premises. That's why when you wear your weapon at the mall, individual retailers may request your compliance with their individual policies, but the general mall staff may not, and does not, eject you from common areas. General trespass in private residences is described in MN 609.605 TRESPASS. -Digiphi (Talk) 07:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That is your interpretation of the law and how it applies, not the interpretation of a reliable source. Wikipedia does not allow Original Research, or editors opinion. Please remove the caption in accordance with this policy unless you can support it with an interpretation from a reliable source. (Hohum ^@) 19:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey. Sorry to leave you hanging. To your post, it is not interpretation. It is the exact language of the Subdivision 17, within 624.714, which is the Minnesota Citizens Personal Protection Act, and is all about carry, concealed or otherwise. In this case, as per policy (WP Primary source policy), a primary source is appropriate in this case to present relevant information without which content would be misleading. The picture is used to demonstrate posting, and its particularly attractive in that MOA is a big deal and nationally known. But the sign says "In Accordance with MN Law", and that's not the case. A solution would be to replace that photo with one of a sign that doesn't state "in accordance with MN law", or one that does make that statement when it is correct, such as at a state hospital, or a correctional facility. We could also amend the NOTE to says "landlords" instead of MOA, because although MOA is a landlord the statute does not specifically name MOA in its language, and I understand how the note could be misleading in that regard. We could also find a photo of a sign in any state, actually, that doesn't have this conflict. -Digiphi (Talk) 14:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is still your interpretation of a primary source (the law). You could use an extract of the primary source and let the reader decide. But you are drawing your own conclusion, that is unacceptable. This is very clearly pointed out in wikipedia policies. (Hohum ^@) 20:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, two things. 1.) Again, it's not my interpretation at all, and I'll explain exactly the way in which it is not. You don't have to read the whole law, just all of Sub. 17 to understand the point I'm making about interpretation. That "landlords cannot..etc." is stated expressly, and that it applies expressly to businesses and not residences is stated as expressly and without any ambiguity. I'm not suggesting you didn't read it, not to try to belittle your argument. I'm not. I want to ask though entirely affably: did you read the entire subdivision? Also, I don't like to reveal personal info—not regarding you necessarily, but who knows who else is reading?—in posts, and I'll delete this bit in a few days. I'm in Minnesota, and this is like seat belt laws. It's not unclear or awaiting challenge in the courts or treated differently by different parties at present. It's simply the law that we have and live under. It's just the way it is everyday like traffic statutes: stop completely at stop signs; no left turns during a red light, etc. There's no interpretation, it just is what it is. You know what I mean?

2.)I'm liking the suggestion of posting a portion, on its face. But I'm not 100%. Here's why: A)we're not posting several hundred words in an image caption. That would be sloppy of us and wouldn't last long before someone got rid of it just on the grounds of its excess, I'll bet. But I'm interested in what you have in mind. Would you give an example of that? B) If after reading the entire Sub. 17 (if you hadn't) and you're still not coming around, it may be better that we find a different photo for this purpose. -Digiphi (Talk) 22:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I forgot about this conversation. No, you are interpreting the law. The law is a WP:PRIMARY source - your (or my) understanding of it isn't relevant to wikipedia - which relies on WP:secondary sources - which, in this case, would be a WP:RELIABLE, verifiable expert opinion - i.e. a judge or competent lawyer explaining the meaning. A primary source would be ok if you just showed an extract, to prove what it said, but explaining what it *means* is the domain of secondaries. (Hohum ^@) 02:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

2nd paragraph of header mostly bullshit

Not to mention incredibly bad style. That kind of opinion belongs not in the supposedly neutral header but in a section that accomodates opposing views on the issue. The Founding Fathers would have no doubt considered the issues of slave uprisings, invasions by england or bad leaders restricing guns to ensconce themselves more surely when drafting the constitution. However, they would also have had in mind the issue of civil liberties. That is, the government, in taking away guns from responsible civilians oversteps the line that rightfully restricts it. The 2nd paragraph of the header takes a lot of words to run into the ground the tired old "it was done out of fear of a second british invasion" argument, which may have some truth to it, however by including only the practical and not the political philosophical reasons why Madison chose to draft the constitution this way gets mired in blatant left-wing, anti-gun POV. 20 bucks says whoever wrote the header lives in the northeast, wears plaid, and likes Bob Dylan. Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have to admit that I like Bob Dylan. But aside from that, I agree that the second paragraph of the lead was horrible, so I've commented it out. I will remove it completely in a week or so. --Hamitr (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I re-included the text. Hiding it isn't helpful to the editing process - in this case it has been hidden for over a month with no additional discussion - we can't tell if this is because people have noticed and agree/don't care - or more likely IMO, because people who have the article watchlisted didn't see an edit with a large number of bytes changing, so assumed it was minor.

If you think it should be rewritten, moved, deleted, perhaps try the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle. (Hohum ^@) 10:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've removed the paragraph. --Hamitr (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I hate Bob Dylan, but I'm currently wearing plaid. Anyway, although you were right to remove the rambling and poorly written second paragraph, you didn't take into account of why it was put there – the first paragraph's blithe reference to "the right of the individual to own firearms as encapsulated by the second amendment." The individual right to own firearms is the result of recent Supreme Court cases which decided on a particular interpretation of the second amendment. Minor point, but worth correcting. TiC (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Guns won the West

Removed from article:

• Some historians believe that this perception that guns won the West springs from a mythology, and ignores the role of homesteaders, ranchers, miners, tradespeople and businessmen; they attribute the "taming of the West" to ranchers and farmers, not gun-slinging cowboys.(Citation needed|date=January 2011)

Find a source, put it back; you know the drill. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)