Talk:Universal background check

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Universal background check article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of National Instant Criminal Background Check System was copied or moved into Universal background check with this edit on 18:40, 28 January 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

United States: Government

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Any new suggested improvements or updates?

Thoughts? DN (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate statistic

I don't think this is correct:

A 2012 study published in the journal Injury Prevention found that nearly 80% of all firearms used for criminal purposes are obtained through transfers from unlicensed dealers, which are not required to conduct background checks in a majority of states due to the private sale exemption.[22]

Looking at the source, it makes no such claim. Can anyone explain how anything in the article adds up to 80%? If not, it should be removed or replaced with an accurate number. Random username 0001 (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the source to which you are referring? I found another RS that seems to follow this narrative. Are you having trouble understanding the context? It is a bit academic in nature, but the math seems right. DN (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source you listed actually says the opposite:"More Than 80 Percent of Guns Used in Mass Shootings Obtained Legally", while the Wikipedia article says that 80% were obtained from unlicensed dealers. And yes, the first source you linked is the one I was referring to. But reading through the article, it doesn't mention 80% anywhere, and the data itself, I don't see anything that adds up to 80% unlicensed sales. I don't know why the Wikipedia entry claims it says that. If there's an analysis someone has done of the study that shows were the 80% claim is from, I can't find it. The source is there, but the source doesn't seem to say what the entry claims it does. Random username 0001 (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While it is referring to mass shootings, I don't see how it says the "opposite"? ...The study in question is also cited by this, a 2019 DOJ report..."Among prisoners who possessed a gun during their offense, 90% did not obtain it from a retail source"....The study cites this journal and this book...it's not explicit but it's also backed up by other RS...Maybe try Wikipedia:RSN and see what they say? DN (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

The article states that upwards of 80/90%+ of voters in the US support UBCs, but goes on to mention the initiatives in WA and ME (two blue states) that indicated support of about 60% and 48%, respectively. Shouldn't this discrepancy be mentioned? — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 09:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

States with universal background check laws

The "Universal background check" section is sourced almost entirely to the Giffords Law Center. That is a gun control advocacy organization. Advocacy organizations should not be cited for summary factual information. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof: Although the Giffords Law Center is a pro-gun-control group, their factual information about gun laws is generally quite detailed and reliable. Similarly, the NRA-ILA is a pro-gun-rights group, and their information is also detailed and reliable. What I recommend is using both of those as sources -- they should generally agree. Secondary sources like those are generally preferable to primary sources such as quoting the actual laws. — Mudwater^(Talk) 22:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right. I just looked for guidelines on the matter and this time I found WP:BIASEDSOURCES and WP:ALLOWEDBIAS. Those do not preclude referencing biased/advocacy sources. My previous impression was that such sources should be treated as WP:NEWSOPED, which is different. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought I had seen guidelines or policies to that effect. Thanks for finding those. — Mudwater^(Talk) 02:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]