Talk:Gun rights

"Gun rights" - what are they?

Over 100 pages link to Gun rights, and over 500 pages mention the term. This page is simply a redirect to Right to keep and bear arms, which never mentions the term. So, there's an obvious problem. A major topic is missing and its descriptive title redirects to an article on a different topic. We need a Gun rights article to describe what the term includes, what gun rights advocates seek, and gives the history of gun rights advocacy, and so on. That's not covered in the redirected article. Felsic2 (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of WP's 'co-founders' saw this problem about 15 years ago.[1] It took a long time to fix. Felsic2 (talk) 06:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Larry Sanger: I guess I oughta 'ping' the guy since I'm citing him. Felsic2 (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US centric

Unless we decide that the term "gun rights" is by definition US-centric, the article should probably be renamed to "Gun rights in the United States", because its only discussing the US. As currently written, I think (whatever title is settled upon) should be a redirect to either Right to keep and bear arms in the United States or Gun_politics_in_the_United_States Gaijin42 (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It just needs more information. Gun rights and gun control are both topics of gun politics. Should we redirect them both? To only redirect this article would be very POV. Gun rights and the gun rights movement is a notable topic in itself. Even the sources already included show that. Felsic2 (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a good argument for not redirecting to GpitUS. But that doesn't apply to RtkabaitUS. Gun control and gun rights should obviously both have articles. I'm just saying that the RtkabaitUS is already covering the material in this article. If you think this article is going to be global "gun rights", thats a different issue, but thats not the article you wrote. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

THe scope of this article is international, just like gun control. The article is still being written. "Right to keep and bear arms in the United States" is about a local concept. This article is about a general cause. It'd be very inappropriate to merge or redirect this article elsewhere, as if there was no significant topic of "gun rights". Felsic2 (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this article should discuss the concept of rights in the abstract, or as an overview of what the rights are internationally? The first is more valuable I think, but also much harder to write. The second risks become duplicative of Overview of gun laws by nation. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be about gun rights and the gun rights movement. If gun control and gun rights are the two "sides" in the gun politics debate then there oughta be an article about each side. You'll find that the term "gun rights" is used in many sources and is linked from many wikipedia articles. The lack of a gun rights article has been a POV problem for 15 years. See above. Felsic2 (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gun rights/right to keep and bear arms is actually an ancient law/concept, it's not something the Founders of the USA just thought of when they were drafting the Constitution. What makes the USA stand out on this is that it's been written and codified into law as opposed to the UK where it's part of the (unwritten) common law over there (not to mention in practice, largely dissolved). 2601:8C:4106:9F60:DD65:5F49:5EB3:BCB9 (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. In many places, the carrying of arms outside of military drills was limited to designated personnel, like knights. However this article is focused just on the matter of civilian "gun rights", which doesn't predate the invention of modern firearms. Felsic2 (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreements among gun rights supporters

Some U.S. gun rights groups disagree with one another on the best approach to furthering their goals. For example, the Gun Owners of America, the National Association for Gun Rights, and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership have criticized the NRA.^[1]^[2] I don't see a reason to delete text if there's a minor problem with wording. Please read the sources and improve the summary of the criticim by these groups of the NRA. Felsic2 (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

I withdraw my objection. When I read the MJ article the first time, I apparently missed the criticism lines. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I was editing WP last year I had many problems with editors making knee-jerk reverts without reading the text or checking the sources. I hope that habit has been corrected. Thank you for being more careful. Felsic2 (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

advocates section

The bullet list under the advocates of gun rights, is not about gun rights, its about actions taken by advocates of gun rights, which for the most part are not about gun rights. (for example, the substituteability question is not really relevant to a discussion about rights. If the argument is true, or false has no bearing on if something is a right or not), the same with most of the other bullets in that list. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "advocates" section. The list is of are arguments made by gun rights advocates in favor of gun rights. I guess I don't understand the problem. Felsic2 (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not arguments made in favor of gun rights. Those are arguments made against gun control. The two concepts are not the same. (One can argue for or against gun rights in the complete absence of any gun control laws) Arguments against gun control belong in the gun control article. A gun rights article should talk about the actual right and arguments for or against the existence of that right, or the limitations of that right. The road you are heading down is just rehashing all the other control/politics articles. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

good cause - rephrase as saying they argue good cause restrictions violate the right
yes
yes
no - not a gun rights issue
possibly per #1
possibly per #1
no - not a gun rights issue
no -not a gun rights issue (and seriously? give me a break).

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read each of the sources? They each talk about gun rights. Please sumarize them better rather than simply deleting sourced content. Felsic2 (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I moved some of it to a paragraph on methods. Felsic2 (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before we start debating individual points and sources, lets get on the same page. Do you agree or disagree with this statement : "By definition any argument made by a gun rights advocate in favor of guns or against gun control is a 'gun rights argument'" Gaijin42 (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that talk about gun rights, gun rights advicates, gun rights groups, etc, are the sources we should use. Do you agree that there is a topic "gun rights"? Felsic2 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note you did not answer my question. I will answer yours. "Absolutely". I'm not sure you are writing an article on that topic though. There is certainly overlap between gun rights, and gun rights groups. But not everything about gun rights groups is about gun rights, and not everything about gun rights is about gun rights groups. If you want to write an article about "gun right advocacy groups" I think that would probably pass WP:GNG and be sourcable. But it would not be the same as a discussion about gun rights. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The topic sentence of the article is indicative of the problem "Gun rights advocates seek to protect and enhance the right to keep and bear arms. They oppose gun control legislation that places limits on private ownership or use of firearms." Gaijin42 (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Felsic2 Seriously, if you want to rename this article to be Gun rights advocacy groups, the majority of my objections go away (including some of the content I deleted). I think an article with an overview of the groups is a fine topic. But its not the same thing s talking about the concept of rights. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "advocates" stuff is now a subsection. Felsic2 (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page be an article, a disambiguation, or a redirect?

Should this page be an article, a disambiguation, or a redirect? In my view it should be a redirect. As I said in my recent edit summary, "gun rights" refers to the legal concept of the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't refer to gun control, and some people use the two as contrasting terms. And it also doesn't refer to gun laws in various countries, that's a related but separate topic. — Mudwater^(Talk) 10:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created the disambig page recently because it was previously a redirect to Gun politics in the United States, which is evidently ridiculously US-centric. I agree with you that right to keep and bear arms is the closest article in meaning to "gun rights" but I think the other articles I linked from the disambig are also plausible destination articles. I'm thinking in terms of what information the reader expects to see (ie. the legal concept or gun rights as they concretely are). I suppose this could be done with hats at the top of the article though, as is the case now. Basically I would support your current redirect or the disambig page, they are both reasonable. Jdcooper (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. If it's agreeable to most editors, let's leave this page as a redirect. — Mudwater^(Talk) 22:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/gun-appreciation-day-groups

[2] ttp://www.theblaze.com/contributions/how-this-gun-rights-group-is-profoundly-damaging-your-second-amendment-rights/

[1]

[2]