Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Requesting change to the "studies on effects of legislation" section[edit]

The "studies of effects of legislation" section states from Arindrajit Dube, Oeindrila Dube, and Omar Garcia-Ponce (2013) in the American Political Science Review that lifting the assault weapons ban increased homicides in Mexico by 60 percent. The problem with this is that while gun control advocates constantly state that 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico come from the US, William Hoover and Anthony Placido from the ATF only claims that the 90 percent clam only applies to the guns sent back to the ATF for tracing as mentioned here:

While more reliable sources state that 50 percent of all the guns seized in Mexico come from the US, the idea that homicides in Mexico would jump 60 percent is just too suspicious. Mainly because the Mexican drug cartels have a variety of sources from Central America to get their guns as mentioned here:

Even if 50 percent of the guns come from the united states, it's worth mentioning that the United States has better law enforcement and legislation toward stopping weapons trafficking which increases the cost of the weapons being shipped into Mexico because of the risk. When the Mexican drug cartel relied on weapons trafficking from central America, they were able to get their weapons from sources that simply impossible for law enforcement to trace due to the government corruption and weak police activity that central American countries suffer from. This is really more or less a theory I have, but I feel that the assault weapons ban only encouraged the Mexican drug cartels to get their guns from untraceable sources at the cost taking longer to reach Mexico. If you ask me, the only reason the drug cartels buy 50 percent of the weapons used in Mexico is because the United States is the closest source, but it's harder because of increased police activity the United States has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talkcontribs) 01:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

AWB sunset and Mex Drug War: correlation not causation - The murder rate in Mexico surged because President Felippe Calderon militarized the Mexican War on Drugs in 2006, called in the Army, and destabilized the balance of power between the cartels, resulting in a free-for all between fragments of gangs. (E.g., Los Zetas the ex-special forces who were the ultra-violent security arm of one cartel became the leaders after the more business-like heads were removed.) The 60 percent surge in Mexican deaths after repeal of the AWB is coorrelation. The cause was the militarization of the Mexican War on Drugs. Since most of the deaths were people involved in the drug cartels (often gang-on-gang territory disputes), from 2006 to 2008 Mexican President Calderon and US President Bush saw the tens of thousands of deaths as evidence of winning the War on Drugs. After the administration change, and the Obama Administration wanted to declare a War on Guns, the tune and words of the song changed. This is not just confusing correlation with causation: it is using a correlation to push an aggenda based on blind faith in gun control. --Naaman Brown (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I see the study is still reported in the article. which it should be. It's crazy for anonymous editors on Wikipedia to dismiss academic studies published in prestigious journals because they say they aren't satisfied by the methodology or conclusion, and to further insult the scholars involved by claiming they're only motivated by political bias. Felsic2 (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Studies on effects of the legislation: Dube[edit]

A study conducted by Dube in 2013, showed that the FAWB had a significant impact on crime in Mexico and that with the expiration of the FAWB in 2004, gun-related homicides increased significantly in areas bordering the U.S.

Hello! I was curious, so I looked through the paper sourced. This sentence is highly misleading, for while it accurately reports the first hypotheses tested,

Hypothesis 1. The 2004 expiration of the U.S. FAWB led to a rise in homicides in Mexico, over the 2002–2006 period.

it fails to include the second and third:

Hypothesis 2. The 1994 passage of the U.S. FAWB led to relatively small homicide changes over 1992–1996, when electoral competition was low.
Hypothesis 3. The expiration of the U.S. FAWB led to relatively larger homicide increases among Mexican municipios that had become more electorally competitive prior to 2004.

All of those were found to be significant, but I'd venture to say it's fairly obvious that only including the first while leaving out the others is a liiiiittle bit of an interesting choice.

And looking through the paper we get such gems as this:

The null effect in Table 5 supports Hypothesis 2: reduced gun availability did not diminish violence in the two years after 1994, since this was a low-competition period when informal agreements between drug traffickers and PRI mayors limited the extent of fighting among DTOs, and between DTOs and the state.

Reading through the entirety of this study, I implemented an alternative that actually represented the paper's findings:

A study conducted by Dube in 2013, showed that the passing of the FAWB in 1994 had an insignificant impact on violent crime in Mexico, while the expiration of the FAWB in 2004 combined with political instability was correlated with an increase in gun-related homicides among Mexican municipalities near the border."

There are some other concerns I have with some assumptions of the paper as well, but I'll leave the OR out of this. Also, that was a lot of freaking work for one sentence. :P Eleutheria Sleuth (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Small revert to effectiveness in section header[edit]

A quick look to google for definitions gets us:

effectiveness: the degree to which something is successful in producing a desired result; success.


effect: a change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.

a small but poignant distinction. Considering there are quite a few examples (for starters, literally the next sentence after the heading) of there being no effect, I have reverted @Lightbreather:'s edit to the original wording, as 'Studies on effects of the legislation or lack thereof' seemed a bit too wordy.

I assume that this will be non controversial. If viewed as a frivolous and unimportant distinction, it would follow that as effectiveness is only an extra 7 characters, there is no real reason to not use it, either. Eleutheria Sleuth (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah dang, just saw Lightbreather was banned. Well if anyone else wants to jump on and discuss it, feel free. Eleutheria Sleuth (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced material[edit]

The entire section entitled "Provisions of the ban" was unsourced and has been for years. (It's been tagged as reference-improvements needed for 18+ months). The only citation in the entire section is to a single sentence in the section, with the cite pointing to "H.R. 4296 (103rd)" — not a good cite, as we should be citing to a reliable secondary source or to the final legislation (i.e., the United States Statutes at Large, which lists the final version of legislation, not just House bills which may or may not reflect the actual bill), and in any case we should refer to specific sections of legislation where possible.

Legislation is not "self-sourcing" and there is no exception to the ordinary WP:V and WP:RS requirements for legislative summaries. Before restoring, we need to have specific, inline references (WP:BURDEN). This should not be hard; there is an abundance of sources. Neutralitytalk 15:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I've added some sources now (via a Congressional Research Service report). Neutralitytalk 15:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Legislation is a reliable, verifiable primary source about what the legislation states. In Wikipedia primary sources are allowed, provided they're not analysed or interpreted by the editors. Simple summary is not WP:OR.GliderMaven (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
There was no inline citation for any of that material (prior to my adding citations and re-doing the section). Even when citing to a primary source is OK, we actually need to cite to the source, including specific sections of the legislation. In other words, this material is not "self-sourcing" - editors cannot simply add or restore unsourced content just because reference material is out there somewhere.
I'd also add that using primary sources also presents the danger of cherry-picking, in that editors will summarize what they think is important, as opposed to what the reliable sources identify as the most important aspects. This particular concern isn't present here, but it's one more reason to be very, very wary of primary sourcing on matters such as this. Neutralitytalk 05:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)