Talk:Gun politics in the United States/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Interesting Toronto Star article on gun bans and gun crime

There is an interesting Toronto Star article that I thought could serve as a useful secondary source and a useful reference to primary sources in this article, and other articles related to violent crime. I am not really involved in this page, but I offer it to whoever wants to use it: A look beyond the handgun ban - Murray Whyte Apr 27, 2008. Topics covered include:

  • Toronto's proposed handgun ban
  • Chicago's existing bans on handguns and assault weapons
  • Gang violence in Chicago
  • Homicides and social interventions to prevent homicides from happening

kevinp2 (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about the effectiveness of Project Safe Neighborhoods in Chicago. I am not sure this is topical to the 'politics' of gun control, though I guess that the fact that the Cato Institute has advocated[1] politically to defund the program makes it on topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Notable individuals

Delete this entirely? This list is quite arbitrary. If these people can be worked into the main text, great, otherwise, I think it should go.--Cubic Hour (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be a list of lists. I think it should go, too. Yaf (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, I have never liked that section much. It doesn't add meaningfully to the article; lose it. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 21:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Yaf (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Gun culture

Anyone care to justify why the section on gun culture in this article should be as long as the main Gun culture article itself? It seems jingoistic and irrelevant to me. --Cubic Hour (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

it could probably stand to be trimmed down. note, "trimmed down" != "take a meataxe to it". Anastrophe (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I'm in favor of meat-axing this section. --Cubic Hour (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
please don't. try editing cooperatively. "I don't like it" isn't a valid rationale for deleting an entire section. it is relevant to the article. it may be overlong. with effort it can be made shorter. Anastrophe (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Your initial response makes it look like that's not really possible. For the time being, I'll be following WP:BB--Cubic Hour (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Gun culture is hugely important to the politics of guns. Based on reading reliable sourcing I have learned that: perhaps the largest difference between the opposing sides of the political debate is that the 'pro-gun' side places a high value on the beneficial qualities of gun culture on society, and the 'pro-control' side does not. This premise and disagreement; that 'an armed citizenry' is good for society, or is not good for society, is at the heart of the topic of this article, and also a fundamental premise of gun culture. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
But why make it such a large section, in an already overly long article, when there's already a large article on it's own? This article should discuss how gun culture relates to the politics, not simply give an overview of gun culture.--Cubic Hour (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, because 'gun culture' is perhaps the largest difference at the core between the opposing sides of this political debate. Therefore it deserves prominence. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
As it stands though, this section is essentially guilty of WP:SYN, as I was when I attempted to counter it. If you want to make the argument that gun culture is important to the politics of guns, that can be made in a sentence or two, from a referenced source, and then providing a link to the main Gun culture section. SaltyBoatr mentioned "Based on reading reliable sourcing I have learned that: perhaps the largest difference between the opposing sides of the political debate is that the 'pro-gun' side places a high value on the beneficial qualities of gun culture on society..." Why not just mention these reliable sources, say what they say, and then reference the main article? For example, how can the statement that "The origins of American gun culture trace back to the revolutionary war, hunting/sporting ethos and the militia/frontier ethos that draw from the country's early history," possibly be relevant to the article, unless it's synthesized into something larger than itself? It may very well be important, but simply giving a history of gun culture, and then justifying it because the culture influences the politics, is synthesis. --Cubic Hour (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Political arguments section

Am not quite sure why this section is in this article; it doesn't seem to fit, but would perhaps best be spun off into its own article. Before doing this, since it would be a major change, I am looking for comments from other editors on their position on this. Thanks. Yaf (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If no one objects, I plan to break out the political arguments section into a new article, Political arguments of gun politics in the United States in the next day or two, leaving a "main article" link in a greatly shortened paragraph in this article (the Gun politics in the United States article). This splitting out of a standalone section will address the problem with the too-long length of the present article, while also moving content out that is not directly related to gun politics. Comments? Yaf (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
There does seem to be enough material to support a stand-alone article on the subject, and the current article is very long. I say go for it. The worst that can happen is that it doesn't work and gets merged back in, and it might just turn out to be a fine article on its own. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 18:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm all for shortening this article. My only weak objection is to the title of the new one, as it's a bit unwieldy. I don't have a better suggestion... but perhaps someone else does.--Cubic Hour (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Yaf (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain why this http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm link keeps vanishing? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.214.46 (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Confusing and Contradictory

"For the last several decades, this debate has been characterized by stalemate between an organized outspoken MINORITY that believes in an individual RIGHT to firearms and an ambivalent majority that believes in the duty of government to legislate gun laws to prevent crime and maintain order.[2][3] Repeated polling has found that a MAJORITY of Americans believe that they have a RIGHT to own a gun[4][5]"

so um, is individual right different from just a right to own? or does the article (and sources) just contradict itself? or does it mean that even though most americans believe there is a right to own a gun, many of them do not participate in the debate? in which case the ambivalent majority part is deceptive. I think this needs a re-write or something to make the point more clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.218.97 (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

the current lede is FUBAR. it consists of a number of cited assertions - yet those citations are used only in the lede. that spells trouble - it means that assertions are being made in the lede that aren't similarly asserted within the body, where they would use the same citations. this needs to be reworded, and reworked. Anastrophe (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
having just done some copyediting (not the lede though), i'm realizing just what a mess this article is. arguments are stated, restated, restated yet again, restated just for good measure, and yet again restated - all in different contexts, often absurdely placed. for example, more than halfway into the article, well after discussion of the second amendment under 'political arguments', thrust into a section on 'firearm deaths' under 'public policy arguments', is the line "Those supportive of long-standing rights to keep and bear arms point to the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which some interpret as specifically preventing infringement of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms". sheesh! no shit! i could have sworn i just read about that several paragraphs previously. this is the downside to 'collaborative editing' - where it turns into a patchwork quilt of sections that barely take note of the other content of the article. hey, i'm just as guilty of that as any - i can't say that i've read this article from top to bottom in one sitting myself. but this is ridiculous. Anastrophe (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


thanks to whoever rewrote / reworded the intro. it reads much better and clearer now. 172.131.20.93 (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV issues remaining

After breaking out the Political arguments of gun politics in the United States article from this article, I had removed the {{POV}} tagline from this article with the caveat that if anyone thought there were still any POV problems to add the tagline back. I see SaltyBoatr has added this tagline back. What are the issues remaining with the article now, what with the bulk of the political arguments removed? Thanks. Yaf (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

After addressing the Parker case POV issues, have removed the tagline. If anyone still sees a problem, please re-tag article and leave a comment on the talk page as to what the issue(s) is(are). Thanks. Yaf (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

teen attitudes on guns graph

A study of teenage attitude about guns found an overwhelming majority opposed to more guns in society.
A study of teenage attitude about guns found an overwhelming majority opposed to more guns in society.

why was this added? why are the opinions of teenagers at all relevant? teenagers probably think miley cyrus should be president, that doesn't make their opinions useful in the realm of presidential politics. what's next, a graph showing the attitudes of the under-five age group? all that aside: where are teenage attitudes regarding guns discussed in this article? oh, that's right. nowhere. teenagers aren't active participants in political discourse, because they are not adults able to vote, nor are they fully conferred the rights codified within the constitution. furthermore, this opinion survey appears to be rather flawed, in that it uses a sampling that appears likely to return a desired outcome ("Based on their study of 752 seventh-graders and 440 tenth-graders in twelve different inner city schools in two large cities in the Northeast and the Midwest."). so, rural seventh graders don't have opinions as valid as those of inner-city kids? sorry, this is junk. please remove. Anastrophe (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is data comes from from solid reliable sourcing and opinions like this are on topic. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
where in the article are teen attitudes regarding guns discussed? nowhere. you're just dumping an opinion piece into the article with no rationale for its inclusion. as it stands, your self-made graph includes no data with which to judge whether it is an accurate representation. Anastrophe (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
That, and the demographic group on which it is based is extremely limited. Seventh- and tenth- graders from inner-city schools in just a dozen cities is a very specific group; hardly representative of the wider category "teens" to which the graph is currently attributed. As it is, it is misleading, it is unrelated to the topic where it appears, it does not display any solid statistics, and its notability has not been established in the first place. This graph has no place in the article. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 22:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course it is a very specific group, tested with sound statistical methods. Why is that a problem? The section is about 'political divides', so studies of specific groups makes sense.
But, elsewhere in the article when another very specific group "gun owners' self-reporting"[2][3]favoring guns is not a problem? Statistical analysis based on self reporting samples is widely viewed as non-scientific, but that appears OK to the majority of editors of this article. The obvious question is: Does the pro-gun results of the study of 'self-reporting' sample meet our standards for inclusion? What statistical standard are we using, and is it applied evenly for pro-gun and non-pro-gun statistical studies? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Since you did not seem to understand what I was saying before, let me make this clear: the single biggest problem I have with this graph is that it says teens feel this way, when the actual group which was surveyed was a very narrow demographic within the wider group of people called teenagers.
Studies of specific groups are common, but it is statistically unsound to claim that the opinion of a tested subgroup with attributes which are not shared by the entire population is representative of the population as a whole. You cannot calculate the president's national job approval rating by polling twelve people on the same bus headed to an anti-war rally; likewise, you cannot attribute the opinion of teenagers from this very specific background to teenagers in general. Do teenagers who do not live in inner-city environments share these opinions? Suburban teens? Rural teens? Pacific, mountain, central? Ninth graders? The only group represented in the data behind this chart is inner-city teenagers from a small number of cities in only two grades, but through the chart's wording it is implied that every teenager in America feels the same way when data does not exist so support this. Around here we have a term for that. It's called synthesis of fact.
Beyond that I fail to see how this graph can be called "sound" when it doesn't even display numbers. Regardless of if the study behind it was sound, that is not conveyed by the chart. I do not care if other stuff exists or if you happen to like the chart; the simple fact is that this chart was very poorly developed and has absolutely no place here. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 16:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This researcher clearly meets WP:V standards. Is that in dispute? This researcher has studied and identified attitudes about guns in a segment of society. Agreed? I have provided a link to the source of the data, a law journal, which is undoubtedly a solid reliable source. The topic at hand in that section is "political divides" and the chart does an excellent job contrasting that this divide between segments of society is wide, and spans a wide spectrum of society. Certainly, the opinion of urban teens as a legitimate segment of society has worth. The sample size of the study, about 800, meets normal statistical standards.

The absence of your complaint to the Concealed Carry animated graph[4], which genuinely has WP:V problems using a dubious source (the Radical Gun Nuttery web blog of Jeffrey C. Dege), raises a question: Why do you only have pointed complaints about one graph and not the other? The appearance for Jc-S0CO is that you may have a skewed tendency to oppose content which is not pro-gun in the article. In the case of Anastrophe, he has already stated bluntly that he opposes having the gun rights POV slowly whittled away by some editors, and Anastrophe continues his POV agenda in this recent pattern of edits. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

this article is about gun politics, not attitudes towards guns. the survey suffers badly from biased selection - please explain why only urban, inner-city teens have valid opinions about guns? why are the opinions of teens relevant, but no mention is found of the degree to which adults or children like or dislike guns? as i pointed out before, this is a self-made graph that does not identify the values that go along with the portions of the pie graph. it's nice that you point us to a book for the raw data, but since there are exactly three values of response, it strikes me as odd that you had no space to include the actual percentages and numbers that were used.
but again, i return to the fundamental issues i pointed out before. this article is about gun politics. the question of whether teens like or dislike guns isn't germane to this article, particularly since nowhere in the article are teens even discussed. try finding some relevant data to insert into the article. Anastrophe (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The insertion of the teen research graph is just an example of WP:POINT. I don't see the need for an irrelevant graphic unrelated to the article, with an extremely specific point, in an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. It doesn't belong in this article. (On the other hand, properly cited, the graphic on the right to carry progression across America does belong, representing a major shift in gun politics in the US.) My $0.02. Yaf (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

offensive image removed

i removed the cover illustration of 'redneck rampage' or whatever it's called. it is a classic, offensive stereotype; it is unencyclopedic to use offensive stereotypes to illustrate this article. it would be an appropriate illustration for an article on Stereotypes of gun owners or Stereotypes of rural american poor people or some such. Anastrophe (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Find me a policy that says that we can't mention negative stereotypes? Especially in a discussion of popular culture? As of now, the section is heavily biased towards glorifying guns.--Cubic Hour (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
the image doesn't constitute "discussion". your text only barely constitutes 'discussion'. a discussion of negative stereotypes would explore why the images and stereotypes are considered offensive, why they are inaccurate (as all stereotypes and generalizations are), why why they're considered hurtful. just as a similar discussion would accompany offensive stereotypes of asians, or dimunitive people, women's basketball teams. discussion is appropriate, merely dumping examples of negative stereotypes into the article is quite another, and will never fly. it would appear you favor negative stereotypes of gun owners. that's fine, but your personal preferences don't merit inclusion in an article about gun politics. Anastrophe (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Whether it's offensive or not is purely POV. --Cubic Hour (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
And it's no more or less relevant than the rest of this gun culture section, which is pretty much a macho, rah rah guns piece. The whole section should be "meat-axed," or it should be balanced.--Cubic Hour (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Extrapolating the existence of one Jeff Foxworthy joke regarding guns as being a recurring topic of redneck humor -- to a general statement regarding redneck humor -- is not indicative of anything; it is Original Research. Likewise, for using an image of a video game that has a picture of a double barreled shotgun on the cover and somehow equating to a general statement; it is Original Research to make any claim for it representing anything. Have removed the Original Research. Yaf (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The following sentence is "In popular literature, frontier adventure was most famously told by James Fenimore Cooper, who is credited with creating archetype of the 18th-century frontiersman through such novels as "The Last of the Mohicans" (1826) and "The Deerslayer" (1840).[20]" how is that any less "original research" than "Guns have appeared in popular culture as an integral part of the humorous "redneck" stereotype, such as in the well-known comedy of Jeff Foxworthy [20] and the video game "Redneck Rampage."[21]"--Cubic Hour (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
By the fact that the cited source for the James Fenimore Cooper makes the claim, and an editor is not making the claim. It is a violation of WP:SYN and WP:NOR to equate the existence of one Jeff Foxworthy joke to a generalization about an entire culture. Indicative yes, but it definitely is a problem to then extrapolate the existence of one joke to an entire culture. The cited source doesn't support the statement that is being made. As for the existence of one joke, that proves nothing, other than that it exists. Perhaps it is appropriate in a Jeff Foxworthy article to include guns as one topic that he jokes about, but it is not appropriate to make a wide generalization on the basis of one joke. Have removed content in violation of WP:NOR and WP:SYN. Yaf (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
when discussing the culture of a group on wikipedia, i'm not aware of any articles that glorify negative stereotypes of those groups. African american culture, Culture of China, Culture of Iraq, Culture of the Netherlands, and on and on - none even discuss the misperceptions of those ignorant of that group's culture. again, you've made it clear that you fall into the column of those people who believe the negative stereotypes of gun owners, and wish to push your bigotry for that group into the article. i would recommend however that you consider creating an article on Stereotypes of gun owners or some such, in which this matter can be discussed appropriately and neutrally. i'd like an opportunity to address these negative stereotypes formally. stereotypes are expressions of ignorance, so an article on stereotypes about gun owners could go a long way towards explaining and perhaps dispelling that ignorance. Anastrophe (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
As for Yaf's comment though, I read WP:SYN, and I'll find better citations before reinserting those points. Anastrophe's comment is laughably ironic, but otherwise not worthy of response.--Cubic Hour (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
right, because clearly articulate rebuttal to your claims is too hard to counter. cubic hour dropped the following bon mot on my talk page:
"Redneck (stereotype). Enjoy, buddy --Cubic Hour (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)"
the intellectual depth and rigor of discourse speaks for itself. you know, when white trash on wikipedia dump offensive stereotypes into the many articles about african americans, nobody bats an eyelash when they are reverted, usually as vandals. why should identical behavior be tolerated here? Anastrophe (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You said, "i'd like an opportunity to address these negative stereotypes formally." I posted a link on your talk page (a more appropriate location than here) for you to do exactly that. Calm down, big guy. Thanks for complementing my "intellectual depth" though! I really feel better about myself now. --Cubic Hour (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Redneck != gun culture. apparently it does need to be spelled out for you. and no, your bon mot belonged here, where the discussion is. i have no desire to have one-on-one discussion with you, or for that matter, any editors. wikipedia is not a social network. Anastrophe (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
oh, and a correction, since i failed to include the full characterization - here's the whole bon mot:
Yee haw!
Redneck (stereotype). Enjoy, buddy --Cubic Hour (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
again, the quality of discourse should speak for itself. Anastrophe (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] To at least briefly return to the point: The justification for a gun culture section as I understand it, is that it somehow helps to understand the politics; i.e., the romanticized version of the history of gun use in America (noble frontiersman taming the west, etc) partly explains present political leaning. Likewise though, negative stereotypes of historical and present gun use can help explain the leanings of many Americans against guns (images of "rednecks" in popular culture are common, and strongly conflated with gun use, at least outside of the South). However, this section is currently being edited such that all negative stereotypes must be properly cited, and conform to all policies, or be subject to immediate deletion. Positive stereotypes must only be tagged though; they can't be removed without discussion.--Cubic Hour (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

i have no opposition to inclusion of material discussing the stereotypes appropriately. dumping offensive images into the article, and citing a stupid joke on a site that doesn't qualify as a reliable source (nor was the joke itself a reliable example, since it was user-submitted), is not encyclopedic. Anastrophe (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Trying to rise above the personal opinion dust, what is the difference between mentioning 'The Last of the Mohicans' versus 'Redneck Rampage'? Policy based answers please. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Giving it a quick 'google books' test[5], there does appear to be reliable sourcing that discusses video game violence in context of gun culture. Ditto for 'The Last of the Mohicans'[6] In short, they appear similar in priciple, and if one is included, why not the other? SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Because video game violence != redneck rampage and redneck rampage != video game violence? Of course there are books that discuss video game violence as related to gun violence and gun culture, however i dont think that redneck rampage is a big part of the discussion. If you go up to any person on the street and ask them what the first game they think of when you say video game violence is, and i bet they answer GTA or doom. I doubt anybody would answer redneck rampage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.125.89 (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)