Talk:Gun shows in the United States

Opening paragraph of gun show loophole section

Trasel recently reverted[1] my edit to the opening paragraph of the gunshow loophole section, with the edit summary "Too much POV inference, based on the cited source. The facts are plainly stated.)". Can we talk about this? The version favored by Trasel says "a term created by those who seek to regulate transfers of firearms between private individuals ", which is starkly at odds with what the cited source says: "...an unfortunate loophole that has since been exploited to allow convicted felons and other people who shouldn't own guns to evade the background check requirement by buying their guns at gun shows. ... This situation is dangerous not only because it allows convicted felons and other prohibited persons to buy guns"

Clearly, the source states this loophole is relative to convicted felons and other prohibited persons to buy guns, and not relative to 'private individuals'. The POV push appears to be to try to extend the intent of the source away from criminals towards all private individuals, and this push violates both WP:NPOV and WP:SYN. We should stick with the source which describes attempts to close the loophole which is being exploited by criminals. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the cited source is a political speech by a stridently anti-gun politician, and is laced with inflammatory rhetoric. The term "gun show loophole" is in fact a term of art that was invented by those who seek to restrict private, legal commerce. They may *claim* that their goal is to stop felons from buying guns, but the ACTUAL effect of this proposed legislation would be to restrict ALL private intrastate commerce at gun shows. To be fair and balanced, the wiki article should cite references representing a variety of points of view--not just Senator Liberman's. Trasel (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Here, for example, is alternative point of view, from a conservative think tank: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba349 Trasel (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I take it that you now accept that the cited source describes "convicted felons" and not "private individuals". Your earlier edit summary comment "...at odds with what the cited source says" was incorrect. In light of that, please self revert. Which passage in your new cite are you looking at? I see "mandatory checks will be a step towards banning private firearms sales between individuals", is that the passage? That seems to be describing something as fact that may happen in the future, and would be not appropriate per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Though I would support a statement that critics of the proposed legislation fear that it would lead to a future path towards banning private firearms sales. SaltyBoatr (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I trust that you'll fine the revised wording acceptably balanced and NPOV. I included two cites for the counterpoint view.Trasel (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a big improvement, I really appreciate it. Though, to describe one side as 'gun control advocates' and by name 'Joe Liberman' and the other side as simply "others" (with no mention of their advocacy and no mention of the name H. Sterling Burnett). Especially considering that the declared advocacy of one side is crime control/child safety and the declared advocacy of the other side is gun rights. Using the opponents frame of reference, calling crime control and child safety to be gun control, is an unnecessary framing bias. Not declaring that H. Sterling Burnett is an award winning gun rights advocate also fails to inform the reader of the POV advocacy of that author. Would you continue to work with me to fix this problem? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Using the opponents frame of reference, calling crime control and child safety to be gun control, is an unnecessary framing bias."

That might be true, if the gun control proponents were actually focused on crime control and child safety, and were advocating measures that had a record of reducing crime or increasing child safety. The reason that it's hard to discuss this subject in a balanced manner is that the gun control proponents have been lying about pretty much their intentions, their goals, their motivations, pretty much everything else, for the last 40 years or more.

--jdege (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I could not agree more that 40 years of more of distrust makes our task here extremely difficult. The controlling policy here is to set aside anger over the decades of lying. I am sure that both sides here feel the other side has been lying. It might be helpful to re-read the WP:NPOV policy for guidance of how to navigate this heated topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns expressed here. I don't see why it is necessary to mention Senator Lieberman at all. Furthermore, the opening statement, "The 'gun show loophole' is a term created by gun control advocates to describe the current commerce in firearms that exists within many states," is misleading, making the issue sound far broader than it really is. Why not state exactly what the loophole refers to right off the top? That said, I do like Trasel's addition of the current effort in Montana to evade federal regulation, that is a relevant point here. I am going to make one small change for now. The issue is not stopping people who "should" be prohibited from owning guns from getting them, but those WHO ARE PROHIBITED UNDER FEDERAL LAW from getting them. That needs to be clarified. Forward Thinkers (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I welcome the back and forth collaboration of the opening sentence of this article section. Still, reading the description of the proposed legislation in the cited source I see no indication that this was a term coined by "gun control advocates". Rather, it is described as a crime control issue. It appears that the opponents to the law seek to 'frame' the issue by painting their opponents with a "gun control" label. We should avoid doing that in this article. Making that change to the article now, plus some streamlining of the grammar of the sentence which has grown too awkward to be readable. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The "framing" of this issue began with the inception of the term. From the beginning, it was a political construct and a term of art. Calling this solely a "crime control" issue is laughable. We are discussing a contentious term. And it is contentious because it originated within the Brady Campaign political apparatus, with a political goal. To consciously avoid describing the origin of the term in this article would be historical revisionism. Trasel (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think your recent edit[2] is much improved. Perhaps I don't understand you, are you saying that everything from the Brady Campaign is contentious? For something to be contended, there needs to be camps in opposition, and you focus on just one. Two hands are needed for clapping. For this article to be neutral we need to face that, remove ourselves from the contention and write neutrally fairly describing both camps. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You asked:

"...are you saying that everything from the Brady Campaign is contentious? " No! My assertion is that the very use of their term of art at face value represents a bone of contention. By creating a hobgoblin, the the Brady Campaign, VPC, et al, have attempted to implement the Hegelian dialectic, to meet their political end, This is a classic political ploy: They create a false "crisis", and their "solution" is the implementation of their originally desired political goal. The loser, at the end of the day, is liberty. By incrementally destroying constitutional liberty, statists hope to accomplish over the course of a century something that they could never do overnight.

And, BTW, you've neatly sidestepped an open issue, so I'll re-state it.: To consciously avoid describing the origin of the term in this article would be historical revisionism. Trasel (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It is best to avoid everything which we do not verify in reliable sourcing. I see none of your sourcing about the origin of this term, so your claim of historical originalism has no disclosed basis. Is your source reliable? Or is your assertion original research? When I look to reliable sourcing(DeConde ISBN 1555534864 pg 277) I see that felons purchase about 30% of their firearms from the underground markets which operate at gun shows, so on its face it appears that the 'crime control' rational given by the Senator seems plausible.

This discussion started after your revert[3] with the explanation "Too much POV inference, based on the cited source. The facts are plainly stated." I then re-checked the cited source (presently footnote 9) to confirm your explanation, I found your explanation to be wrong. Please be more transparent here. It appears that you may be using other undisclosed sourcing or using your own original research while editing this article to advance your personal point of view and agenda to use Wikipedia to protect 'liberty' as you see it. I respect your sincerely held belief about protecting 'liberty', I object to you improperly using Wikipedia to do so. Especially with contentious articles like this one, we must strictly stick with reliable sources and represent them neutrally. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I find i laughable that you are accusing me of attempting to push this article, when you have clearly been SHOVING it in another direction. Take a minute to compare my editing history as a whole, to yours. (We both only have a few hundred edits each, and it doesn't take long to do a quick scan. Go all the way back to when you and I first created user names,and scan forward.) You will see that my main interest has been in biographies of survivalists and hard money economists. I only rarely make edits on articles related to firearms politics. Your edit history, in contrast, has been one-man crusade against constitutionalist, militia, and right to keep and bear topics. You have few edits in any other area. I don't mean this as a personal attack, it is merely an observation of the public record of your edits. I invite other editors to take a look, and see who it is that might be pushing an agenda or an axe to grind. Hint: It isn't me.

Apparently, you misunderstood this edit comment:"Too much POV inference, based on the cited source. The facts are plainly stated."' So let me expand on it, and spell it out. By it, I meant that your edits inferred to much from the cited source, and that THE WIKI ARTICLE, AS IT STOOD HENCE had the facts plainly stated, and you saw fit to rip them out, leaving behind only narrative that matched your personal political agenda. There are two sides to this issue, but apparently you prefer to see only one (yours) fully represented.

Now lets get back to the real issue at hand, and that is the etymology of the term "gun show loophole". It is a purely political construct that came from the pen of Josh Sugarman, the executive director of the Violence Policy Center in Washington, DC. (formerly called Handgun Control, Inc.) The term was quickly embraced by the Brady campaign and other gun control lobbying groups. By calling free and legal commerce a "loophole"--which creates subconscious links to people that cheat on their taxes--they sought to demonize one of the cornerstones of American life--the ability to buy or sell household goods , at will, with or without profit, in INTRAstate commerce, without government regulation, and without paying homage to any entrenched guild, or fill out any "paperwork", or get "permission" from a bureau or agency or government. This same commerce is the last bastion of free, undocumented firearms ownership, which is anathema to gun controllers. They want to see the advent universal registration of firearms, and the very thought of private citizens buying and selling firearms freely amongst themselves does not fit with their world view, and their agenda for civilian disarmament. (After all, there can not be effective eventual confiscation of firearms, if some of them are not registered.)

I'll do my best to document when and where the term was first used, and cite sources. Once again: To ignore the issue of who created the term, and why, would be intellectually dishonest and manipulative. Removing such references on the term's etymology is nothing short of historical revisionism, and reprehensible editing. Trasel (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have offended you. My record is perfectly clear that I strictly adhere to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV policies. I object to your smear on my character written above, using innuendo. It would be better going forward if we stick to what we read in reliable sources and I will wait to hear about your sources as to your 'historical revisionism' assertion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the cites. The earliest one speaks of 'loophole' but not 'gunshow loophole'. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This section presently starts "The term "loophole" relative to gunshows was originated in 1996 by the Violence Policy Center...". I see from the cite that the word loophole was used in that year, but no indication that it was originated in that year, or that it was originated by anyone. It could easily have originated earlier by someone else, no? This looks like WP:OR. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

When they started using this term (in the context of gun shows) in 1996, they did not issue a press release announcing "Gee, look at the wonderful term that we just invented!" They just started using it. Mentioning that fact does not constitute original research, as long a link to their dated document with the first use is included. If we can find an *earlier* use of that term in the context of gun shows (than the VPC's mentioned first use in 1996), then let's document it, with the appropriate cite. This is just simple, tried and true wiki editing based on published sources, NOT original research. Trasel (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there is some compromise wording, they used the term in 1996, or something. I see no sourcing that the originated the term. We should not create an unverified illusion that they coined the term. We see no sourcing of who actually originated the term. Can you suggest some better wording? You seem to believe that they invented the term "gun show loophole" ("Gee, look at the wonderful term that we just invented!"), yet you have provided zero sourcing that they actually invented it, only that they used it as early as 1996. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with SaltyBoatr's point above. If the article is going to state that VPC "invented" the term "gun show loophole," then a source should be provided to verify that claim. Another small issue I see is the mention of "proposed legislation" here. Is that supposed to refer to the bills that have been introduced over the years to close the Gun Show Loophole? It's a bit vague. Forward Thinkers (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Who is quoted ? I noticed ever instance of the term gun show loophole is in quotation marks. It seems to be an attempt to make it look snarky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.182.27 (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Reorganization of Page

I recently made some edits to this page, as a large section entitled "Recent History" had been added to the page despite the fact that it had several problems. For starters, it contained a great deal no content that was "recent history," and instead referred to 1968 and 1986 laws that had been addressed elsewhere in the article. Also, this section contained several broad claims that were unsupported by sources (such as a vague claim that most gun show attendees prefer to buy guns from licensed dealers). I incorporated the content in this section into the Overview and Gun Show Loophole sections. I don't believe any salient points have been lost. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Those improvements look good and I agree that removal of material unsupported by sources is a good thing for this article, and for Wikipedia in general. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

This article has a very anti-gun slant. It makes it sound like gun shows are nothing but places for unlicensed people to trade illegal arms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.173.227 (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. All I see are "studies" from anti-gun organizations, and bits of ATF reports cited out of context. Case in point - the ATF says that 50-75% of vendors have FFL is clearly intended to create the false impression that 25-50% of gun dealers at gun shows are unlicensed, which is anything but the truth. 25-50% of vendors at gun shows aren't selling guns, they're selling books, tshirts, military memorabilia, etc.

jdege (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The article reads like a propaganda piece. The entire article needs to be overhauled.--74.167.7.205 (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Gun show differences by state section

Good idea, but not adequately sourced and very OR. Suggest removal. 173.22.180.181 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

 Done Agreed, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 15:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

US specific topic

The global tag does not apply, as gun shows are distinctly US-only type events. Gun shows, as they are held in the US, with private sellers selling their personal handguns, rifles, and shotguns to other private individuals in a public venue, with no involvement by government agents whatsoever, occur no where else. Perhaps a title change, to reflect a US-only topic is needed. Calling the US Constitution protected right to keep and bear arms a "hobby" is also distinctly insulting to US wikipedians. Hence, I have removed the world wide view tag for a distinctly US cultural issue article. Discussions? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is this article only about the United States. There is a terrible bias that needs to be addressed. America is not the only country that has gun shows. I suggest changing the name to something like Gun Shows in the United States, or we fix the problem.--Dmol (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Trade shows involving guns are held throughout the world; some of these are called gun shows. But, this article is not about such trade shows. Rather, it is about private individuals buying and selling guns among themselves at an event called a gun show, with little to no involvement by the government. Specifically, I am not aware of this type of activity still being legal for buying and selling handguns anywhere in the English-speaking world but in the US. As I understand it, modern handguns are entirely banned for private ownership in the UK, and in much, if not all of, Australia, save for limited numbers of professionals licensed by the state for varmint control. As for long guns, such as modern semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, aren't these banned in the UK and Australia for private ownership? Some shotguns, and some bolt-action rifles, perhaps, can be owned by private individuals, in the UK, Canada, and Australia, but aren't licenses required in the UK, Canada, and Australia to purchase even such permitted shotguns and bolt-action rifles? I find it hard to believe that US-style gun shows, where private individuals can buy and sell numerous types of firearms legally among themselves without any government intervention, occur anywhere outside the US in the English-speaking world. That said, perhaps we need but change the title of the present article to Gun shows in the United States, with a further disambiguation page with content appropriate for other usages of the phrase "gun show" applicable for the broader sense of the phrase. There is a "terrible bias", too, to conflate the phrase "gun culture" with only criminal activity. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

We do have gun shows in Australia, and I am sure they also exist in New Zealand, South Africa, and several other countries. It is for this reason that I object to the article being entirely about the US and nowhere else. I'm not sure why you think that the licensing issue makes a difference to the arguements being discussed. The US seems to have a different meaning to the term. Here, (not sure about other countries) we can't just walk in with cash and come out with a gun. You can purchase if you have the right permits arranged beforehand. That said, I agree with moving this article to Gun shows in the United States, and leave the present article as a redirect until I or someone else has started another worldwide article. If no-one objects, I'll move it tomorrow.--Dmol (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Virginia Laws on Private Handgun Sales

Read the Law: What are Virginia laws concerning the private sale of a handgun? (http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms.shtm) To privately sell a firearm, it is RECOMMENDED that the seller safeguard information pertaining to the transaction such as the date the firearm was sold, the complete name and address of the buyer, and the make, model, and serial number of the firearm. The seller and buyer of a handgun MUST BE A RESIDENT OF THE STATE in which the transfer occurs. Additionally, Virginia’s handgun purchase LIMITATION applies in private transactions. Refer to http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_MultiplePurchase.shtm for additional information on multiple handgun purchases. Should the firearm ever be located at a crime scene, trace of the firearm will determine the licensed dealer who last sold the firearm and will identify the last buyer of the firearm. To have your name removed from this process, you may consider placing your firearm on consignment with a licensed dealer. This will also ensure that the firearm is transferred only to a lawfully eligible individual.

It is the responsibility of the seller to ensure adherence to this policy. Selling a firearm to certain "prohibited" persons is a felony.

Multiple purchases of handguns within a 30 day period by one buyer, is a felony. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308.2C2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.68.146 (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

CODE OF VIRGINIA 18.2-308.2:2 L1. Any person who attempts to solicit, persuade, encourage, or entice any DEALER to transfer or otherwise convey a firearm other than to the actual buyer, as well as any other person who willfully and intentionally aids or abets such person, shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. This subsection shall not apply to a federal law-enforcement officer or a law-enforcement officer as defined in § 9.1-101, in the performance of his official duties, or other person under his direct supervision.

M. ANY PERSON who purchases a firearm with the intent to (i) RESELL or otherwise PROVIDE such firearm to ANY person who he knows or has reason to believe is INELIGIBLE to purchase or otherwise receive from a DEALER a firearm FOR WHATEVER REASON or (ii) transport such firearm out of the Commonwealth to be resold or otherwise provided to another person who the transferor knows is ineligible to purchase or otherwise receive a firearm, shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if the violation of this subsection involves such a transfer of more than one firearm, the person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of five years.

N. Any person who is ineligible to purchase or otherwise receive or possess a firearm in the Commonwealth who solicits, employs or assists any person in violating subsection M shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony and shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of five years.

Gun shows outside of the United States?

Should we have a section on gun shows in other countries as well?--24.240.187.254 (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Adam Gadahn

The following excerpt about Adam Gadahn has, "He also correctly claimed that, 'You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card,'"

How is it possible to say he was "correct" when two sentences later it states, "Subsequent news analysis indicated that individuals could not actually buy a fully automatic assault rifle at gun shows"? Backward (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

There were lots of incorrect statements here; have now corrected the content. Thanks! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerky

What is the objection to including jerky in the list of items sold at gun shows? It is universally present at all the gun shows that I have ever attended. Or, it is strictly a problem with the purists that think only "guns" should be sold at gunshows? (See: possible jerky reference for more on this cultural divide. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

We build the encyclopedia based upon what reliable sources say, not personal experience. It's definitely not notable enough for inclusion in the lede. Anastrophe (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Controversies section heading

See also related 2009 discussion Opening paragraph of gun show loophole section

Hello everyone. I have been advised by Cullen³²⁸ to come here to introduce myself and let everyone know that I have been working to help improve the page. Specifically the section entitled "Controversies". My changes included fixing broken links, replacing and adding citations with more relevant ones, as well as some additional dialogue, all of which I felt was necessary to improve the efficacy of this section. Please feel free to take a look and let me know if you have any objections, questions, or concerns. Finally, I would also like to ask if anyone knows why this section is entitled "Controversies" instead of "The Gun Show Loophole", since this seems to be the main topic of discussion in this section. Thanks. Darknipples (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that "Controversies" is probably the best wording to use at this time, since "Gun show loophole" is terminology used by advocates on one side, who argue in favor of legal restrictions on gun show purchases. Accordingly, using that term advances that particular point of view. What one side of the controversy sees as a loophole, the other side sees as liberty. The article should balance both sides. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, User:Cullen328. I hope you don't mind if I inquire further, and by all means, feel free to direct me to any section of wiki that explains the process in which these types of decisions are made or agreed upon, whether it is by seniority or majority etc... I know that you are a "senior editor", so of course this leads me to assume your opinions and control over what edits are made are likely final. In any case, you have been very polite and helpful to me, so regardless of your title, you certainly have my respect.

So, back to the question at hand. As I had previously mentioned, this seems to be the main topic of discussion within this section, and it would seem prudent for anyone searching this particular page for content concerning "the gun show loophole" to find this language in the heading, at least as an indicator to content that is being sought after. Perhaps "Gun Show Loophole Controversy" or "Loophole Controversy" would be a more appropriate compromise? The argument that "there is no such thing as a "loophole" is also only used by one side of the debate. It is still entirely debatable whether or not the term "loophole" applies to (FOPA), is it not? The definition of the word loophole implies ambiguous, inadequate, or omissive in nature, and by "the other side's" standards it meets the definition of the term in that it "contravenes the intent of the law (Gun Control Act of 1968) without technically breaking it". The term "loophole" has also been used by the United States Department of Justice and the United States Department of the Treasury in describing the law (FOPA), and even stated the suggestion of "(extending the Brady Law to "close the gun show loophole.")" http://www.justice.gov/archive/opd/AppendixC.htm . Forgive me for saying this, but, by excluding this term from the heading of the section that is almost entirely about said "loophole", it seems somewhat disingenuous and biased towards only one side of the debate, as well (no offense intended). To put this in another perspective, consider also the debate over whether or not global warming exists. There is definitely a comparable number of those on one particular side of the issue that definitely find that term "controversial", if not, an affront to their "reality" or "liberty". Granted, there are certainly some major differences, and I may seem like I'm comparing apples to oranges (so to speak), but we are also talking about a page title compared to a section heading. By that measure, would it be better for this term to have it's own page, respectively? By simply referring to "it" as nothing more than a "controversy" would seem to leave little doubt as to whether or not it is anything more... I certainly agree that the article should balance both sides, and I hope that my questions and suggestions don't offend anyone, as this is not my intention. Feel free to correct me, I take criticism well, although I can be a bit tenacious in the absence of cited credible sources... User:Darknipples (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope you clean up that controversies section it is horribly written and not very encyclopedic. I've read Craigslist ads that were better written.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The existing section title is adequate. The term is politically charged, and since a large faction disagree with the characterization, there's no value in naming it based on what one side prefers to call it. It doesn't add any clarity by changing it. Renaming it to something like "Controversies related to the so-called 'gun show loophole'" would spell it out, but it wouldn't improve the article. The term and the allegation are controversial. Thus, 'controversies' is adequate. Anastrophe (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, Anastrophe. I appreciate your input, however I am confused by your explanation and reasoning for leaving the current section title the same. "The term is politically charged" - Would you please explain what bearing this has on the section header? Aren't politically charged terms and articles allowed on Wiki? "since a large faction disagree with the characterization, there's no value in naming it based on what one side prefers to call it." Conversely, another "large faction" does agree with this characterization. This is why I suggested a compromise. Since one side believes the loophole exists, and the other does not, how is leaving it out completely and just having "controversies" provide balance to both sides, let alone clarity, or an accurate description of section title's content? "The term and the allegation are controversial. Thus, 'controversies' is adequate." Except, the term "loophole" isn't mentioned, and it is only "controversial" to one side. - Respectfully, Darknipples (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I think DN brings up very valid points, and we should not dismiss his suggestion too quickly. Coincidentally, I've been working on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System article. Just yesterday, one of the sources I was reading on the subject mentioned the "gun show loophole," and I wondered what we had here on WP on the topic. So I searched it, and that's how I ended up here. "Gun show loophole" is the term a preponderence of WP:V, WP:RS use. The fact that some don't use it is not a reason to not use it. We just need to make it clear in the opening paragraph of the section what it means and that it is disliked by some. See WP:BALANCE. Lightbreather (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Use of the term dates back to 1999 - by at least two U.S. government agencies.

18 U.S.C. § 922(t) prohibits only a licensee from transferring a firearm to a nonlicensee before contacting the national criminal background check system and does not apply to transfers by nonlicensees. According to a 1999 report by the Department of the Treasury and DOJ, this is known as the 'gun show loophole.' Source: "Firearms Trafficking: U.S. Efforts to Combat Arms Trafficking to Mexico Face Planning and Coordination Challenges" (PDF). gao.gov. United States Government Accountability Office (GAO). June 2009. p. 27. GAO-09-709. Retrieved June 24, 2014.

--Lightbreather (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The term actually dates back to 1996, when the former incarnation of the Violence Policy Center invented it. As long as the very first sentence acknowledges that it's a term made up by pro-gun-control forces, I'm fine with the change. Anastrophe (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I provided my source, and a high-quality one, too. Would you provide yours, please? My thinking was that the first paragraph needs to explain that the term is disliked by gun-rights advocates - but to say it was "made up" by gun-control advocates is a stretch - without at least a couple of high-quality sources. Lightbreather (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Anastrophe - "The term actually dates back to 1996, when the former incarnation of the Violence Policy Center invented it. As long as the very first sentence acknowledges that it's a term made up by pro-gun-control forces, I'm fine with the change." I believe this discussion has already been resolved in the original section listed on the talk page - The source and citation you are using seems to have been used by User:Trasel and determined to be WP:OR by User:SaltyBoatr and User:Forward Thinkers. Lightbreather - This is one reason why I did not want to move this topic to a new talk page. Can we move it back so we can more easily reference what has obviously already been discussed? - Respectfully All Darknipples (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

DN, it's OK, really. I will add a link to that older discussion to the top of this discussion. (Again, we haven't started a new page - just a new discussion on the same page.) Also, I will try to find the diffs (edit records) for the points you're referring to and add those here, too. Lightbreather (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

DN, here is the diff of {{SaltyBoatr starting the 2009 discussion: [4]

And here is the diff of Forward Thinkers support: [5]

Hope that helps. You're doing fine. Lightbreather (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll withdraw the claim that they invented it. I will stand by this as the first use of the term: http://www.vpc.org/studies/tupeight.htm . The argument is not that gun-rights advocates "dislike" it, it is that the contention that it is a "loophole" is false. The sales are fully within the law, and interfering in interpersonal sales violates virtually all commerce clause restrictions. The section needs to properly characterize the issue. The term "gun show loophole" is a propaganda term, and it's been as successful as the term "assault weapons" in its acceptance. Anastrophe (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Anastrophe, we posted on top of each other. So what I write here might repeat some of what you've written.

I did a little searching myself, and found this: "http://www.vpc.org/studies/tupcont.htm" and the final section "https://www.vpc.org/studies/tupeight.htm" of that ("Recommendations") says:

Amend the definition of 'engaged in the business' to close the loophole that allows sales from a personal collection in supposed 'pursuit of a hobby.' One option could be to disallow such sales at gun shows altogether.

So I see that the VPC used the word "loophole" in its report, but not that it created the term "gun show loophole." Neither the press release or the executive summary from that report say "gun show loophole," either, though the executive summary does repeat the recommendation quoted above. Perhaps someone involved with the 1999 report I mentioned above took that VPC report seriously and created the term? Who knows? Without a high-quality, definitive source it's a moot point. The important thing is to tell the reader that some dislike the term. It's a regularly used but controversial term to describe what some see as a problem. Then describe the problem, using reliable, verifiable sources, and including reliable, verifiable counter arguments.

(added) So what we need to describe, is the dispute about use of the word "loophole." That is what you're saying, right A.? Lightbreather (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Anastrophe Would you say that your POV is possibly biased towards gun rights or that your are anti-gun control? Darknipples (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The talk page for discussing the article, not individual editor's personal points of view. My POV is irrelevant. The POV of the article is what is relevant. Anastrophe (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I propose that we let DN rename this section "Gun show loophole" and guide him, kindly and assuming good faith, as he reworks it. Lightbreather (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I reject a blanket rename to "Gun show loophole". We don't use one side's pet name to describe a controversy that surrounds the notion, the meaning, the intent, and the outcome of the the term. A section name of

"Gun show loophole" controversy

would be closer. Unfortunately the section does not discuss the "gun show loophole" exclusively. Confining the section to that name misrepresents the section. Thus the broader term 'controversies' is the appropriate heading. Anastrophe (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

We already have a redirect for Gun show loophole that brings any interested reader to this section. I continue to oppose using a term favored by one side of a controversy in.a section name, and will always recommend neutral language in such cases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Cullen, I have great respect for you and your take on these kinds of issues, but I disagree on this. The problem - setting aside for now that gun-control and gun-rights advocates see and describe the problem differently - is called the gun show loophole by a preponderance of high-quality WP:V - and not just by one side or the other, but by a majority of neutral sources as well. The MOS:HEADINGS guidline says provisions in Article titles generally apply to section headings as well. That guideline directs us to the WP:TITLE policy. And that policy tells us: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." At least 9 of the 15 sources cited in the section under discussion talk about or mention the gun show loophole. (A couple of those 15 sources no longer work.) WP:POVNAME says, "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title...." (or, in this case, section heading). To not use the common term is to give undue weight to the viewpoint that there is something wrong or devious about the term. Lightbreather (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately "Controversies" is vague. Perhaps "Private sales controversy" would be a good sub-heading? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC).

I think "Gun show loophole controversy" is a good compromise. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I could live with that, or "Gun show loophole debate." Lightbreather (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't. Loophole is a politically contrived term, by the anti-freedom crowd in an attempt to use the federal government to overreach its authority and meddle in the affairs of individual states. "Private sales" or "lack of background checks" at certain venues may be more appropriate and may garner you more support from the pro-freedom crowd. If I started selling guns in a McDonald's parking lot without background checks would you refer to that as the "McDonald's Loophole"? There is enough politicizing on here without this derogatory term, do not lose NPOV and alienate positive contributors.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Mike, I know you have strong feelings about these things. Many who edit these gun-control related articles do, but our opinions about the terms used do not matter. What matters is that the sources - a preponderance of sources pro, con, and neutral - use the term. What we do to make it NPOV is to explain the viewpoints in a balanced way using an impartial tone. Lightbreather (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, like that's going to happen, but it is interesting that an article about "Gun shows" only has external links to the antis POV and propoganda and not a single link to an actual gun show; well not really interesting but a main reason why people think this site has become a joke instead of an actual encyclopedia. That is like littering the abortion articles with links to Pro-life sites; only that would probably lead to a site ban.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Mike, it can happen, and it should. I was going to put an external link to a gun show or two, but wouldn't that be WP:LINKSPAM?

And all those links to antigunners is not linkspam? --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I withdraw support for changing the name of the section. It is not limited only to the so-called 'gun show loophole'. It is entirely neutral, unbiased, and common for an article to have a section labeled simply "controversy" or "controversies". Changing this does not improve the article in any way that I can think of. A person searching on the term "gun show loophole" will be directed to this article; The article is short in relative terms, and a person of normal reading comprehension can read it from top to bottom in just a few minutes. If they are short on time, they can use their browser's built in search facility to find the term they are looking for. Mislabeling the section to conform to one side's chosen name for a portion of the content is not neutral. Absent a compelling argument that the existing section name is not neutral, or is misleading, or is confusing, I can't support a change from what is clear and concise already. Anastrophe (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

If the user does not associate the term with controversy, wouldn't there be a possible "disconnect" there? Darknipples (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't edit other user's comments, I'm not sure why you changed "misleading" to "misleadi ng" in my response (I've restored the original). I see no disconnect. If they are directed to this article in search of the term, they'll find it in due course. And they will be educated in the process as to what the nature of the controversy is. The very first result in a google search of the term "gun show loophole" brings them to this page. Anastrophe (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

My apologies Anastrophe, I must not have noticed. It was purely accidental. Darknipples (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

With regards to the argument that "The Gun Show Loophole" doesn't exist, or, that it is merely a political ploy, and should therefore not receive a section title (let alone it's own page), I find it flawed. There are plenty of WP pages on so-called "controversial" subjects ranging from God to Welfare queen. Further evidence that use of the term on WP already exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Show_Loophole_Closing_Act_of_2009 Darknipples (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources for "gun show loophole"

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

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

In the effort to help clarify things, the use of the word "loophole" in describing F.O.P.A. does seem to at least go back all the way to the point of origin. http://armsandthelaw.com/gunlaw/FOPA/house_floor_debates.html Darknipples (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm unable to find a mention of 'loophole' in relation to gun shows. Can you please provide a quote? Anastrophe (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

As previously stated, it is only in reference to F.O.P.A. - I was more or less referring to Mike's objection as to the term "loophole" and it's use in relation to the etymology of the term with regard to FOPA. The "gun show loophole controversy" did not come into the picture as a "controversy" until after the Columbine High School massacre, which seems appropriate in regards to when the "controversy" surrounding "gun show loophole" begins to become prolific in American culture. - Respectfully Darknipples (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

"critics maintain that a so-called “gun show loophole,” codified in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, effectively allows anyone, including convicted felons, to purchase firearms without a background check." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/gun-policy/ - This source seems to make no mention of the word "controversy" in regards to the term "gun show loophole" as it relates to FOPA. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/gun-policy/ - Please share your thoughts. Thank you. Darknipples (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but this article is not about FOPA. FOPA has its own article, and I'd suggest moving this content to the talk page for that article. Anastrophe (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, it still mentions gun shows, specifically, even if it is in reference to how they relate to FOPA. You do make an interesting point, though. I'm afraid that is it for me tonight. I look forward to reviewing additional discussions and questions tomorrow. Good night all. Darknipples (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

ANANSTROPHE - I find the section titled RESTRICTIONS somewhat vague, and similar to CONTROVERSIES in terms of detail and efficacy. This section certainly seems to be lacking content, as well. The term "Gun Show Loophole" and FOPA do seem somewhat synonymous with each other in most of the recent articles and sources I've seen. Would it be prudent to consider RESTRICTIONS as an alternative section regarding the "Gun Show Loophole" Controversy? Darknipples (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The term "The Gun Show Loophole" is used by United States Department of the Treasury and United States Department of Justice. "In January 1999, the Departments of the Treasury and Justice responded with a report describing the gaps in current law and recommending by extending the Brady Law to "close the gun show loophole."" [APPENDIX C HISTORY OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES | GUN VIOLENCE REDUCTION:NATIONAL INTEGRATED FIREARMS VIOLENCE REDUCTION STRATEGY] - http://www.justice.gov/archive/opd/AppendixC.htm - Don't these count as credible sources? Darknipples (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Missing information

This article is far less informative than it could be and is missing quite a bit of information. For example, there is nothing about the law suits (successful or not) to stop certain show and the gun shows that have been shut down and subsequent lawsuits to allow them to be held again. There is nothing regarding the industry such as the worlds largest gun show, the annual SHOT Show that is open to people in the industry only, or the NRA Annual Meeting which is one of the largest traveling gun shows in the U.S. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you have a good grasp on this. How about you try to find some reliable sources and incorporate them into the article? Cheers! Johnny338 (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I will when I have more time to devote to the effort, I just wanted to announce my intentions. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

What's next? How to improve this article?

So Scalhotrod, what are your suggestions for improving this article? Lightbreather (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd say trim the hell out of that investigation section and take a crash course in how to write in Summary Style.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

In addition to what I stated above, Mike's suggestions are excellent. We need to come up with a practical outline before any overhaul of this article can make sense. Here's my first attempt on one...

• Lead
• History
• Types - guns and everything else offered for sale
  • Public - they are called "gun shows", "sportsman shows", or "outdoorsmen shows" around the country, plus there are dedicated antique gun (pre-1899) shows
  • Industry (Trade) - Shot Show, etc.
• Operation
  • Venues and attendance
  • Legal restrictions
• Politics, legislation, and legal activities - including canceled shows, attempted cancellations through court case, etc.
  • Research studies
  • 1st Amendment cases
  • Law enforcement investigation
• See also
• References
• External links

--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 14:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Separate Gun Show and Gun Show Loophole Into Two Different WP Pages

Darknipples (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I am proposing this because a majority of the content on this page is in regard to the term "Gun Show Loophole". I think the term "Gun Show", should be considered a separate term because it is more commonly associated with an event, while "Gun Show Loophole" seems to be considered a "controversial" or "political" term that has more to do with the Firearm Owners Protection Act. Furthermore, other sites seem to be referencing Gun Shows in the United States for "gun show loophole" related information -

- The Topeka Capital-Journal - CJONLINE.COM - Closing the Gun Show Loophole

"Closing the gun show loophole isn't an extension of anything; it's just enforcing the existing background checks to include all gun sales. This is a very minor and common-sense change to gun laws. Nobody is trying to take anybody's gun away; it's about trying to make it harder for guns to get in the wrong hands. There's not really going to be a way to enforce this all the time, say if you want to buy a gun from your cousin or whatever, but for those 'official' outlets, like "Gun Shows", for example, enforcement would be possible. And it would help. Closing the gun show loophole makes sense, unless of course, you're a terrorist; in that case the gun show loophole is awesome. You don't even have to show ID. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States)" - http://cjonline.com/blog-post/matsofatso/2013-04-18/closing-gun-show-loophole

I would like all editors of this page to share their thoughts, as I believe this could solve many of the current issues. Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. There's nothing wrong with the article as it currently exists. That other sites link to this page for information is a good thing, not a bad thing. Anastrophe (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

ANASTROPHE, Please elaborate what you mean by "There's nothing wrong with the article as it currently exists."

Aside from that, The Topeka Capital-Journal was referring specifically to the "Gun Show loophole", to which you've said "The argument is not that gun-rights advocates "dislike" it, it is that the contention that it is a "loophole" is false." All due respect, but your argument seems flawed. By WP's definition "A loophole is a weakness that allows a system to be circumvented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole_%28disambiguation%29 " According to most sources I've seen, the term "Gun Show Loophole" refers to Firearm Owners Protection Act. The main lobbying group of this law seems to be the National Rifle Association. The NRA's goal in enacting FOPA seemed to be specifically to weaken existing gun laws at that time, namely, the 1968 Gun Control Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Shift_to_politics . Finally, in regard to your previous claim that "The term "gun show loophole" is a propaganda term, and it's been as successful as the term "assault weapons" in its acceptance. The term Assault weapon also has it's own page. No offense, but I thought that would be common knowledge, no? Darknipples (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

OPPOSE - DN, the situation you are referring to is called WP:SOAPBOX and WP:COATRACK in Wikipedia terms. Its when articles are used to promote or specifically highlight certain viewpoints. The phrase "gun show loophole", like "assault weapon", is a politically motivated and created term. A separate article would give WP:UNDUE weight to a topic that as you describe is simply footnote of one or more other articles. The loophole content probably needs to be trimmed and the rest of the article improved as I've mentioned above. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 15:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Support - It meets every one of the WP:NOTE guidelines. Lightbreather (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Lightbreather (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

"Its when articles are used to promote or specifically highlight certain viewpoints. The phrase "gun show loophole", like "assault weapon", is a politically motivated and created term" Scalhotrod - Doesn't Assault Weapon have it's own page? - Respectfully Darknipples (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does. It's a commonly used term, and it meets all notability guidelines. Lightbreather (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

And it doesn't matter that Assault Weapon has an article because of WP:OTHERSTUFF. This WP:NOPAGE is the policy we should be following. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

DN has been an active editor less than a week. I think the point that she's trying to make is that the gun show loophole is notable, and it merits its own article. Lightbreather (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod I wasn't the one that brought it up. That was your reference, not mine. - Respectfully Darknipples (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Scal, what I'm talking about is being welcoming to WP:NEWCOMERs: empower them, teach them to be bold, do not slam the newcomer, address the newcomer in a constructive and respectful manner, WP:AGF, and so on. So far, DN has shown potential to be a good editor and a team player, too. Lightbreather (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Policy should be followed by everyone, newbies or otherwise, but there are so many its hard especially for new editors to follow them or even know about them. It's best to learn about policy and procedure early on than struggle through and error over and over and over again and end up just abusing the process. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that everyone should follow policy, but 1. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a policy - it's part of an essay. In fact, 2. WP:NOPAGE isn't a policy - it's a guideline. We need to be careful with newbies so that they understand the difference between policies, guidelines, and essays, lest we mislead them as having some sort of extra authority that we do not have. Lightbreather (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

How long has this article been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale? Darknipples (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@DN: Scalhotrod's comment above - "DN, the situation you are referring to is called WP:SOAPBOX and WP:COATRACK in Wikipedia terms" - is, of course, his interpretation of the proposal. ANY article can be a soapbox or coatrack. Why, even this article might be a soapbox or coatrack. How an article is edited is what makes it NPOV, or not. As I indicated in my vote, the topic of the gun show loophole meets all the guidelines for WP:NOTE. My first thought a few days ago was that there ought to be a "Gun show loophole" article, since it is notable and there is not an article. Then, I discovered that we (that is Wikipedia) is redirecting searched for "gun show loophole" to this (Gun shows) article. So, like you, I figured it just needed a little editing to give it its WP:DUE weight within the article. Since this editors of this article think its inclusion here, beyond mentioning it in a couple of paragraphs, is undue here, then it ought to have its own article... since it absolutely meets all the notability guidelines, as I've already said. Another option would be to move it as a section into the FOPA article, as you've suggested, or perhaps into the NICS article. I could go for either of those options, too. Lightbreather (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

LB, does use of the Enron loophole, as an example, also fall under the category of UNDUE:WP? Darknipples (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE do not apply to whether or not an article should be created or deleted. They are about what to include (or not) in an article, where (prominence of placement, juxtaposition) and how (depth of detail, quantity of text). Lightbreather (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

You are so completely full of crap and you know it. The creation of articles can easily be WP:UNDUE, you've made a habit out of it and even admitted your mistakes. For example in the Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article deletion discussion. YOU, the creator of the article, asked to have it deleted and stated your reasons. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 15:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

DN, for the record WP:SOAPBOX and WP:COATRACK are bad things on Wikipedia and are contrary to its purpose and policy. Are there people here who are trying to push a certain Point Of View (POV) and change article content to suit these purposes, yes, of course. This is in addition to the articles that are lopsided simply because no one has taken the time to do the research. My point is, there is ample policy to guide our efforts and in an instance like this it starts with whether or not its WP:UNDUE for the article to exist. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

DN, when put in square brackets, WP:SOAPBOX is a shortcut to a section of the Wikipedia policy page What Wikipedia is not. The section it points to is Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. It is a policy, so it's most important. (On the scale of importance there's 1. Policy, 2. Guideline, 3. Essay - if I understand it right.) And there's nothing in it to support what Scal says - unless one were to say, create an article called "Gun show loophole" and then fill it only with information about why some think the gun show loophole should be closed. (That would give that POV undue weight.) One would need to also include information, from good (the "gooder" the better) quality verifiable sources about other POVs: that some think that there is no gun show loophole, or think it should not be closed. Including all sides - following the WP:BALASPS (balancing aspects) policy - results in a properly balanced, WP:NPOV article that is not a soapbox or any other bad thing - it's just encyclopedic information. Lightbreather (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that this page is actually named (or redirected as) "THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE" - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=Gun+show+loophole&fulltext=Search - (In light of this info) Would someone please explain in detail why this is not in the title, let alone a section title, how this could possibly be in keeping with a balance of both sides, and why it is not considered confusing to an average user that has no knowledge of this debate? Thank you. - Respectfully Darknipples (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's done (split)

I have split the gun show loophole section of this article off into its own article. I suggest we let Darknipples work on it for a bit, with our supervision, while we consider Scal's suggestions for improving the balance of this article. Lightbreather (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag

I've just added the Unbalanced article tag based upon the sources used. The References list reads like an attack piece on gun shows. I've already stated that above that the article is lacking key information and unless its cleaned up (yes, I'm willing to help), it will be nominated for deletion in its current form. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"The References list reads like an attack piece on gun shows. I've already stated that above that the article is lacking key information and unless its cleaned up (yes, I'm willing to help), it will be nominated for deletion in its current form." - Which references? Darknipples (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Scal, I second DN's question, and I would also comment that if a lot of the sources are about the gun show loophole, which some might categorize as an attack on guns shows, then if we remove that topic to a separate article, as DN has suggested, what remains can be improved as you've suggested. However, of course, there would still need to be a paragraph that says there is a controversy about the regulation of sales at such shows called the gun show loophole - with a link to the article by that name. Lightbreather (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

How is deleting the entire article going to improve anything? Won't someone else just make a brand new one? - Respectfully Darknipples (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Moot discussion now that the articles have been split. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 14:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Gun show loophole section

I recently asked at WP:RSN about whether the gun show loophole is best described as the gun show loophole or the gun show loophole controversy. Based on the result of that discussion,[6] the lead sentence of the Gun show loophole article is now free of the undue POV (for the lead sentence) word "controversy."

Based on that, I also changed the section of this article that was headed "Controversies" with "Gun show loophole" which is the topic of the section. This has been reversed. Comments? Questions?

Lightbreather (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Concerns relative to Controversies section

There are clearly multiple controversies related to gun shows. It is not a single controversy. We should not put in a main section link with but a single controversy listed (gun show loophole) as being the only controversy. This is extremely POV. Rather, we should not mention gun show loophole under controversies at all, unless we put in the Second Amendment issues, too. Most agree that there is no gun show loophole at all. Instead, we should, at most, put a "See also" link with a gun show loophole link, at the end of the article. That would fix the POV problem with the Controversies section. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. You say Most agree that there is no gun show loophole at all. How about 3 or 4 of your highest-quality sources that say there is no gun show loophole? I will provide some from those who say there is. Lightbreather (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Then you disagree with RS from both sides of the aisle. According to Garen J. Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis, "There is no such loophole in federal law, in the limited sense that the law does not exempt private-party sales at gun shows from regulation that is required elsewhere." See page 104. There are also Second Amendment concerns. This article needs balance, not a biased presentation. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC) </refs>

Key words there, "in the limited sense." Wintemute goes on to say that we actually should pass stronger laws that regulate ALL private party transfers, whether they happen at a gun show, the Internet, wherever. Lightbreather (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

True. But, that is a different point. Wintemute clearly states that there is no loophole at present, under current law. If you buy a gun at a gun show from a private buyer, in 33 of the 50 states, no documentation is required by existing law. Your guns are undocumented. No illegalities, whatsoever. If you buy a gun from a private buyer in your living room, in 33 of the 50 states, no documentation is required by existing law. Your guns are still undocumented. No illegalities, whatsoever. There is no "gun show loophole", permitting you to buy at a gun show what you cannot already buy in your living room. But, you now advocate that the law should change. That is a different argument. Wikipedia is supposed to be presented in a neutral, non-advocacy, manner. Your are now advocating, which is clearly not allowed by Wikipedia policies. Hence, the POV concerns in this section. You are advocating for a change in the law, rather than simply writing about what the law is. That is a major editing problem. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of how one spins what Wintemute wrote, the preponderance of WP:RS refer to the topic as the gun show loophole. Within the body of these sources, there is discussion about what that means, and the fact that some people want to close the loophole and others say there is no loophole. The article is called Gun show loophole. The lead of the article does not say that it's a controversy. The head of this subsection should not be more POV than the main article. It should give a brief summary of the topic and direct the reader to the main article. Lightbreather (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The article title included the word controversy until you removed it. It also discussed the controversial aspects, until you single-handedly removed that, too. You are clearly pushing a gun control POV through the preponderance of your edits, instead of writing in a balanced way. That is fundamentally against Wikipedia Policies. The controversies are not solely about a gun show loophole. You have removed all controversies save the so-called "gun show loophole", which doesn't even exist under current law, according to RS. You are not editing in a balanced way. This will need to be taken to admins, unless you start writing in a balanced way. Tag teaming editors in association with sock puppets (or proxy accounts) is also another issue that probably needs to be addressed, too. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The article was originally "Gun show loophole" until a now indefinitely topic-banned from gun-control[7] editor renamed[8] it by tacking "controversy" onto the end. Lightbreather (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No equivocating about whether or not there is one

• Janofsky, Michael (November 15, 2000). "Both Sides See Momentum in Congress for Gun Control". New York Times. - 2000 report in The New York Times.
• Editorial board (April 23, 2007). "Close the gun control loophole". Los Angeles Times. - op-ed by the Los Angeles Times after Virginia Tech.
• Dinan, Stephen (December 17, 2012). "Gun bills face tough sailing on Capitol Hill". Washington Times. - a Washington Times report after Sandy Hook.
• Kesling, Ben (December 24, 2012). "Fear of New Restrictions Drives Crowds to Gun Shows". Wall Street Journal. Contributions to article by Jess Bravin. Dow Jones & Company.

From the Gun show loophole article:

• "Gun Shows: Brady Checks and Crime Gun Traces" (PDF). atf.gov. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). January 1999. Retrieved June 27, 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
  
• "Gun Show Undercover" (PDF). October 2009. p. 11. Retrieved June 26, 2014.
  
• Clinton, William J. (November 6, 1998). "Memorandum on Preventing Firearms Sales to Prohibited Purchasers" (PDF). gpo.gov.
  
• "History of Federal Firearms Laws in the United States Appendix C". justice.gov. Retrieved July 4, 2014.
  
• "Gun show loophole bill is back in Congress". United Press International (UPI). July 19, 2009.
  
• "H.R.141 - Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2013". Congress.gov. Retrieved January 16, 2015.
  
• Rucker, Philip (August 5, 2013). "Study finds vast online marketplace for guns without background checks". Washington Post. Retrieved June 24, 2014.
  
• DeLuca, Matthew (April 10, 2013). "Background checks for guns: What you need to know". NBC News. u.s. news. Retrieved July 1, 2014.
  

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Those are all advocacy pieces, arguing what the law should be changed to be. They are not about the existing law. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We are supposed to write about what is, not what some would like to see become the law. You are advocating a political position. That is not permitted for Wikipedia editors by Wikipedia policies. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• They are government and major newspaper sources. (I left out the Brady Campaign and such.) As I suggested above, please give 3 or 4 of the best there-is-no-loophole sources you have. Wintemute isn't the best source for that because, as I said above, his position is that private sales loopholes are about much more than gun shows only. His position isn't that we should close the gun show loophole only, but virtually all private-sale loopholes that bypass background checks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Also, I am not advocating a political position; many high-quality RS are advocating it, or reporting that others (advocacy groups and citizens) advocate for it. The fact is, at least in my research, there is not nearly as many high-quality RS advocating against it. (Mostly very conservative or libertarian blogs, plus gun-rights advocacy groups like the NRA and GOA.) Lightbreather (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but advocacy, opinion pieces, are not RS. They are opinions. This article is not about opinions relative to what should be done relative to gun shows. It is about what is. It is about gun shows in the US. Cherry-picking "RS" that are opinion pieces advocating what should be done about gun shows is not a proper way to write or edit this article. Miguel Escopeta (talk)

Apparently, we're at an impasse. Shall we call for a WP:3O? Lightbreather (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, only 1 of the 12 sources that I gave above is an opinion piece. And are you going to give sources to support your editorial opinion on this? Lightbreather (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we change the intro to say that gun shows are "controversial"? Some folks like to make sure that's front and center. Or wait, would that bias the article?[9] Felsic (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

When was the first U.S. gun show?

Here's a question that I cannot find an answer to in this article. When was the first U.S. gun show? Lightbreather (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It was probably April 19, 1775, or very soon thereafter. Seriously. They date to whenever you consider the U.S. to have begun. Muskets were being bought by private citizens in large numbers from neighbors in the town squares, or in stables, when raining, at about that time. U.S. gun shows likely started before the founding of the Republic. They were also part of the annual rendezvous of the mountain men, in the 1830's, by which time the attendance was around 400-500, annually. Incidentally, I personally first attended gun shows around 1961, and I know my grandfather had attended them when he was a youngster, which would have been around 1893. He claimed his grandfather had attended them too as a youngster, which would have been around 1840. They were considered just a specialized kind of flea market. The American gun culture and gun shows date to before the founding of the Republic. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's one reference, that pin points 1824 as when the annual rendezvous began. So, it was before then. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I will read that. I just thought it strange that I couldn't find a "History of Gun Shows in America" book or article. Lightbreather (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

There is another book reference that provides some discussion covering since 1938 here. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That first one isn't really about gun shows. It's about "fur trappers' rendezvous" that occurred from 1824 through 1841, at which they could trade "their pelts for blankets, beads, knives, guns, and, of course, whiskey." The second one is without a doubt about gun shows, but it doesn't say that they started in 1938 - it just says that since 1938 "people engaged in the business of selling firearms have been required to get a federal firearms license."

1. Paton, Dean (July 19, 2001). "Their side of the mountain: finding joy in the wild life". Christian Science Monitor.
2. Gorman, Linda (2002). "Gun shows". In Carter, Greg Lee (ed.). Guns in American Society: A-L. Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture and the Law. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781576072684. {{cite encyclopedia}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Safety

"Gun rights advocates" push legislation allowing people to bring loaded guns into bars, courtrooms, city council meetings, and schools because, they say, that'll make those places safer. So where are loaded guns still banned? You guessed it: gun shows. Why? Well, duh: that'd be unsafe. I kid you not: I looked at some of the shows' rules. It's fine for judges and business patrons and politicians and school children to face crazy or drunk or negligent gun slingers. But god-forbid the gun dealers might be exposed to all that flying lead. It'd be hilarious if it weren't so fucking sad. I dunno if I can find a proper secondary source for this, but it oughta be in the article, along with the rest of how these weapons bazaars are run, who profits from them, etc. The laws and shit are important, but there's a lot more to say than that. Felsic (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced study?

The only peer-reviewed study on background checks for the private transfers of guns that looked at data for all the states that have passed these laws has been done in various editions of John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" (3rd edition, 2010). Nineteen states that had such regulations during the years from 1977 to 2005 were examined. Murder and robbery showed slight increases while these laws were in effect, but the increases were not statistically significant. Part of the impact is on who these universal background checks prevent from buying guns. In New York, today’s background checks add about $80 to the cost of transferring a gun. In Washington State, they add about $60. In Washington, D.C., they add $200. In effect, these laws put a tax on guns and can prevent less affluent Americans from purchasing them. This disproportionately affects poor minorities who live in high-crime urban areas. His book also reported that states that adopted the gun show regulations saw a 20 percentage point drop in the number of gun shows in the state.

This stuff ain't about gun shows. The last sentence is, but it's gonna take a lotta rewriting to fit. The rest is about background checks. There's gotta be a better article for it. Felsic2 (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)