Talk:Open carry in the United States/Archive 1

First draft

At this time, this entry is in it's early formation. I just posted the first draft a few seconds ago and found that the neutrality is disputed, as this is not an opinion article but factual references to the topic added into Wikipedia's great compendium I see no cause for early debate.

• As I've asked on your talk page, please stop removing NPOV tags without discussion. --JChap 07:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The Article has been edited and now holds a neutral attitude. See "Opposition"

As for the "NPOV Tag" my bad. Vandalism. Funny.

I have failed to see and any biased information. The article is informative and well written with an extensive bibliography. -Adrenecrone

I do NOT think that this topic should be merged with Gun Politics. It is a distinct topic that has its own historical and political overtones. - JPierce

• I have readded the tags, the point of which is to invite editing, not to slam an article. I am confident that this article will benefit from the attention of Wikipedia editors with a differing views on this topic. --JChap 18:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Mr Chap. The NPOV page seems to suggest that anyone adding the NPOV tag to a page should also indicate just what parts of the article are not written in a NPOV. Perhaps you would be willing to do that rather than adding a flag that is essentially meaningless. Ilbob 13:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Arguments "for" are presented as neutral factual information from "UCLA historian" but do not contain a cite. Links are only to organizations supporting but not opposing. --JChap 14:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know where the quotation came from since I did not put it in, but I did add links to a couple of groups opposing private ownership of firearms. I do not know of any groups that specifically exist to oppose open carry, but since they generally oppose private ownership of firearms that ought to cover it Ilbob 16:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I have added the cite for the quote from Dr McGrath. What else can we do to eliminate the need for the NPOV tag?
    • I also added a cite for the Open Carry Encounters news items
    • I also added some material to the Opposition section including cited quotes from one of the chief opponents of open carry here in Virginia

LLbob, great editing on your part. However the quote was meant to be cited as a common belief, rather than a cite from McGraths book, he said something similar but I do no want to put words in his mouth, I have corrected it. --Lordpoee 18:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed the title of the "in favor" of sites/groups because it really did not accurately reflect what is at those sites. Mostly these sites summerize state laws regarding carry of firearms, and are not organised groups at all, so the title of the section was misleading. I also edited the title of the "opposed" section to reflect more acurately what the section meant, and added a section for "supporters" of right to keep and bear.Ilbob 13:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea lbob, also added the JPFO link under supporters --Lordpoee 08:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I had hoped some better editors would come along and polish it up some. I think the factual side of it is pretty good, as well as links to external sources, but it really could use some polishing here and there and I am not all that good at that. Ilbob 14:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

IMO the article is still nonneutral POV, at least in that it refers to states that allow open carry as gold star (implying good) and others as anomalous (implying bad).—msh210℠ 19:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article was created and the only significant content edits have been done by a group of new users who created accounts within a few hours of each other and engaged in the rather stilted "conversation" above. An anon removed the NPOV tag a few days ago. I am readding it. JChap (Talk) 06:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been here for a while and this is my first visit to this article. The map image is uploaded under GNU License, so it could be edited - or create an alternative with wording that suits you. I would agree that the phrase "gold star" and maybe even the color choice is POV, but the anomalous is very accurate. I wouldn't change the definitions for the most part - they are what determine the color coding of the state. If you're going to revamp that, I would appreciate having some input on the talk page before it goes up to the article.

I come from an anomalous state and though the statutes do permit me to open carry, I would be insane to do so outside of the wilderness. As pointed out in the article, law enforcement officers are not always aware that it is legal and worse, there is a sweet little catch-all that renders the statute pointless as long as someone "in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons." So all it takes is someone stating (on their own or at the behest of officer inquiries) that they were alarmed for their safety and my gun is confiscated, I am charged and my CPL is revoked. I would say that qualifies as anomalous - 1a inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected - 2a of uncertain nature or classification 2b marked by incongruity or contradiction.[1] --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 10:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC) I have since educated myself on OC and have been happily doing so for some time now. I didn't want my outdated knowledge to remain here. ----Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 14:58 9 November, 2007 (UTC)

This article seems very fishy. I really question its neutrality. Looking into Roger McGrath I have found that he is very politically motivated and I have found no evidence that he is any expert on the western frontier. Also The Journal of San Diego History Spring 1985, Volume 31, Number 2 http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkkLn2uhENR4ARPtXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE4cm5uajY2BGNvbG8DdwRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMTgEc2VjA3NyBHZ0aWQDRjc5NF8xMTI-/SIG=12mddmh4f/EXP=1156197479/**http%3a//www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/85spring/br-gunfighters.htm brings up questions of his accuracy. Also the homicide rate of 106 per 100,000 is hardly “low”24.63.148.119 22:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The neutrality of this article is way off kilter. Sources appear biased and need citations/checks. Phrasing needs much work. 131.194.242.11

Having stumbled across this article, I was checking the talk before adding a POV/weasel words tag myself. This article is very from being NPOV, and needs significant work to bring it up to an encyclopaedic standard. Wibbble 04:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting

I've been a copy editor and technical editor for years. This article was listed as needing copy editing. I've made some changes. Let me know if there are any questions/disagreements. --PTR 20:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)