Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:16, 8 January 2014

The contents of the Political arguments of gun politics in the United States page were merged into Gun politics in the United States on 2014-01-04. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Firearms High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gun politics in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 6 months

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Lead still no longer sucks...

Really, its not a summary of the article at all. If anything its about as "weasel-y" as it gets. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Better, but the anti-gun side needs to be represented with their views that gun violence is a "public health issue" along with their stance that "less guns will make for a safer society". Sound about right?

Plus a paragraph summarizing neutrally the historical aspects wouldn't hurt. Per MOS, we have 4 paragraphs to potentially use. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Scalhotrod, I just added another paragraph to the lead, quoting the CDC. Will attempt a history paragraph next.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm getting mushy now, but that history paragraph is pure brilliance. Short, simple, covers the entire span, and brings in modern context! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, shucks, it will probably stay that way for two minutes, and get me banned by ArbCom. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I'm going to remove an old neutrality tag (from four years ago) that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, the template can be restored, but preferably in a more specific subsubsection.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I think its a good move, we're making progress just with the merge... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I am restoring the Rights-based arguments section NPOV dispute tag, until issues below are properly discussed.

Also, to clarify for other editors who come along, the Public policy arguments section was tagged at the same time with the same tag, but that tag was left in place when this one was removed. Whether or not BOTH flags should be kept or deleted is probably worth discussing. Lightbreather (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

POV shifts: A proposal, a red flag, and another proposal

Political arguments of gun politics in the United States was merged on 3 JAN 2014 into this article (Gun politics in the United States). OK. Then, Security against tyranny and invasion, which had been the fifth subsection under Rights-based arguments, was made the first subsection. OK, maybe, depending on why. Then, the lead was changed to include pro-gun/gun-rights arguments. That's not WP:NPOV.

Here is lead - before and after - side by side:

References

1. ^ Wilcox, Clyde; Bruce, John W. (1998). The changing politics of gun control. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 1–4. ISBN 0-8476-8614-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
2. ^ Wilcox, Clyde; Bruce, John W. (1998). The changing politics of gun control. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 4. ISBN 0-8476-8615-9. For many years a feature of this policy arena has been an insurmountable deadlock between a well-organized outspoken minority and a seemingly ambivalent majority{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference SpitzerCh1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Mackey was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Cite error: The named reference Springwood was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. Cite error: The named reference Chapman was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. Cite error: The named reference Brown was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. Cite error: The named reference Squires was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
9. Cite error: The named reference Webster was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
10. Cite error: The named reference Rasmussen was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
11. First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws, October 3, 2003

1. The material added to the lead should be removed.

2. The weight (by promoted placement) being given to material in the Security against tyranny and invasion section is a red flag. The section includes Nazi and Holocaust material that has resulted in the Gun control article being protected, and to some members of that debate going before ARBCOM.

3. I propose we let this article sit for a week (with the exception of removing material added to the lead) or two while all parties digest how to make this newly merged article NPOV.

Lightbreather (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I have just added a sentence to the lead that hopefully will address your concern. More generally, the current ArbCom case is not about this article. The changes to the lead were discussed above on this talk page, and you are more than welcome to join in, but I do not think that there is any reason to just revert and freeze the lead. As another editor mentioned above, the lead "sucked". As for Nazis (which caused all the fuss at the other article), they are not mentioned in the present lead. Let's try to keep calm here, and pursue regular editing procedures.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but no, that doesn't address my concern. I should really like the additions removed until we can agree on what to add to the lead. Lightbreather (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The lead has four paragraphs. You have not given any reason why you think the first, third, and fourth paragraphs have any POV problem. As for the second paragraph, you have not given any reason why the new additional sentence does not solve the problem. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is inadequate, so please give reasons. Two editors approved the expanded lead yesterday, because the previous lead was awful, and I don't see why to revert to the awful version. Please explain, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I never said I had a problem with the first paragraph. Look, these are hardly established items in the lead. The article was only merged with another article TWO days ago - and then this material was quickly added, with little discussion. As a sign of good faith, could you please remove the stuff you added, and then can we get input from other editors, with differing viewpoints and editing experience? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd probably be delighted to remove material if someone would give a reason why the content is deficient. To me, "have faith in my reasons " is a silly rationale, when you can simply explain in a sentence or two what's deficient. I mean, for Pete's sake, the last paragraph of the lead is about as bland and straightforward as a paragraph could possibly be. Removing it just because it's there is not a good reason. Just give a reason why the content of that paragraph needs to be changed, and that will probably do the trick.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The content of the paragraph needs to be reverted to how it was prior to the merge, then discussed, and then improved. Just two days ago, this article went from about 7,000 words to about 12,000 words. A bunch of edits were made to put tyranny arguments before all others - pro or con - and then the lead was edited to include tyranny arguments, sandwiched between other additions. But it's not an improvement. Nowhere in the brief discussion - over two days between two people - is a reason given as to why, out of a now 12,000 word document, the added items are the lead-worthy.

Please, would you remove the recently added lead material so that there can be more discussion? Lightbreather (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you have no real objection to anything in the lead, except for this: "A further motivation is fear of tyranny. The latter concern is international, longstanding, and shared by a majority of Americans according to poll results. Gun control activists argue that security against tyranny would require much heavier weapons than mere guns." So let's stop imagining that there is anything else objectionable in the lead, and discuss this particular stuff. Are you saying that the lead should not mention "tyranny" at all? If not, please suggest some alternative text. That's normal Misplaced Pages procedure, and I promise I'll consider your suggestions seriously. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The lead is completely unbalanced. "The responsibility of government to prevent firearm-related crime" are the only eight words in it that say anything positive about gun control, and it's only there because "a stalemate between a right to bear arms...and..." has to be followed by something. The remainder of the lead is either the arguments in favour of gun possession, or studies that have "failed" to show that gun control is effective in preventing crime, with the constitution getting a short paragraph, to remind us that that's where the right to bear arms is to be found. Therefore, the lead as a whole completely fails WP:NPOV, and should be reverted forthwith. Scolaire (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Regretfully, I must agree. I suggest we go a mini-article or elementary school essay route. 1st paragraph completely neutral and just describing the concept. A paragraph very briefly describing the pro arguments, another for the con arguments. If we can come up with a good 4th then go there. The lede should not be the place to convince people, it should in as few words as possible tell people what content is going to be found in the body. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

On a second read, we are pretty much in that situation already. Making the 3rd paragraph actually give the gun control argument, rather than saying there is a debate, would bring it into alignment with npov. The 4th paragraph about the constitution as the ruling document for gun laws, and the SCOTUS rulings is appropriate imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I already reverted to the crummy lead, and people can now propose alternatives.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the revert. I look forward to working together with you and others to make a better, NPOV lead. However, I probably won't add a lot tonight because I've had a long day and it's about time to make supper. Thanks again. Lightbreather (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I have extended the lead a bit. Feel free to revert.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted. It would be far better to put proposed texts on the talk page and work on them here. Scolaire (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Scolaire! Lightbreather (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as an outsider, shouldn't it be the other way round? If the debate is over whether to introduce more restrictive measures or not, surely the argument in favour of their introduction should go first, and the arguments against second? Also, with regard to the two attempts to expand the lead, the gun control argument has been presented only as a rebuttal of the gun rights argument. Would not the main argument in favour of gun control be that guns kill people, and fewer guns would mean fewer gun-related deaths? I'm not going to hunt for sources for this, but if my instinct is correct, those who want to look for them should find them easily enough. Scolaire (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you make some excellent points. I want to re-read the article a few more times and think about what you've said. As for the lead, I don't think we should be in a hurry to expand it. Since the article was merged only a few days ago with another article, I think we should make sure the body of the article is in good shape and then improve the lead using WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. (Otherwise, we'll end up with something like the assault weapon article, which I think is in bad need of some good editing - though I haven't been able to get far with it myself.)

This is the lead from the old Political arguments of gun politics in the United States article (now merged with this article):

Political arguments of gun politics in the United States, debate about the right to bear arms, centers on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and how it should be interpreted. Other factors include the correlation between gun ownership to crime and murder rates, ethical considerations, the balance between an individual's right of self-defense, national security, and citizens' interest in maintaining public safety.

This is the lead of THIS article (Gun politics in the United States) BEFORE the merge:

Gun politics is a controversial issue in American politics. For the last several decades, the debate regarding both the restriction and availability of firearms within the United States has been characterized by a stalemate between a right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the responsibility of government to prevent firearm-related crime.

I propose we merge these leads and leave that in place until we can get the body of the article in better shape. Lightbreather (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

PS: I am working on this and will have a proposal within an hour. Lightbreather (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Draft lead

Here is the most recent version of the lead prior to the present (one-paragraph) version:

I think it would be nice if other editors would not ignore this, and instead try to include what might be suitable in further drafts. I oppose installing simply a merge of the present lead with the former lead of the "Political arguments of gun politics in the United States" article. For one thing, Scolaire already said that gun rights partisans were trying to over-emphasize the Second Amendment, which is present in both the present lead and the "Political Arguments" lead. Moreover, I find it hard to believe that NOTHING in the draft lead quoted above is salvageable. Quite the opposite.

The debate is often over whether to introduce more restrictive measures, and it is often over whether to loosen overly-restrictive measures, so let's not assume only the former and not the latter. Also, regarding whether the gun control argument has been presented only as a rebuttal of the gun rights argument, I don't believe that's correct. The responsibility of government to prevent firearm-related crime was not presented as a rebuttal, nor was the lengthy sentence about Sandy Hook. If someone would like to explain in the lead that the responsibility of government to prevent firearm-related crime includes a responsibility to reduce gun-related deaths, that would be fine with me, though it seems rather obvious. Moreover, perhaps the draft lead above was defective in that the first paragraph seems to imply that a right to keep and bear arms is at odds with reducing crime, which actually is a disputed point (i.e. an armed citizenry may sometimes discourage crime). That defect remains in the brief lead that's presently installed in the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Besides the objections I voiced above, I have a number of problems with this proposal. Again speaking as an outsider, most of the statements are too brief and too vague to convey any information to the reader:

• "self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities": first of all, surely hunting is a sport? We then have two uses for guns i.e. self-defense and sport. Do gun regulations or proposed gun regulations affect both equally? Is sport as big an issue as self-defense?
• "A further motivation is fear of tyranny": Why are so many people in fear of tyranny? Most of us Europeans would see the US as a pretty stable, democratic place. Clarification needed here.
• Sandy Hook: this is only the most recent in a long series of high-profile shooting incidents going back decades. Per WP:RECENTISM it should not appear as a stand-alone in the lead.
• "Steps to prevent dangerous people who are not allowed to have a gun from slipping through the cracks": Impossibly vague and uninformative.
• "U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 2008 and 2010": these should be wikilinked, and also state briefly what the decisions were.
• "There remains an unresolved debate regarding the relationship between gun control, violence and other crimes": again, impossibly vague. There is also an unspoken suggestion that because the debate is "unresolved", there is good reason to believe that no such relationship exists.

I would also have misgivings about the first (i.e. the old) paragraph

• "The debate regarding both the restriction and availability of firearms": this makes it look like there are two issues being debated concurrently, but restriction only means a limit on availability.
• "...has been characterized by a stalemate": that could surely be better worded.

The lead of the recently merged "Arguments" article is also biased in saying that the debate "centers on the Second Amendment" (my italics). However it seems to me that the elements of that lead – public safety and national security, the Second Amendment and an individual's right of self-defense, and the correlation between gun ownership to crime and murder rates (I have deliberately re-arranged them, and I've left out "ethical considerations", which again is hopelessly vague) – make a skeleton on which an interim lead could usefully be based. Scolaire (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Replying to Scolaire:

• "self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities": hunting is sometimes a sport, and it is sometimes simply a means of obtaining sustenance. The terms "hunting" and "sporting" thus overlap, and I don't see any purpose in deleting either one. Follow the cited source: "They promote the use of firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities...." Is sport as big an issue as self-defense? If people have no guns, then they can do neither; I don't see any need to get into details about this in the lead.

• "A further motivation is fear of tyranny". If people are in fear of tyranny, the reasons why can be mentioned later, not in the lead. (People also fear getting wet if there were no bridges; the fear of tyranny is similarly hypothetical, i.e. if people had no guns then there would allegedly be tyranny, if people had no bridges then there would allegedly be wetness.)

• Sandy Hook: this happened over a year ago, and it motivated considerable pressure upon and action by gun control supporters such as President Obama. Yes, there were previous tragedies, such as Columbine, but mentioning Sandy Hook is hardly a breaking news event.

• "Steps to prevent dangerous people who are not allowed to have a gun from slipping through the cracks": This is somewhat vague, but it can be fleshed out in the body of the article. The source says Obama directed "the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks." Obviously, the implication is that the guys responsible for the Sandy Hook massacre and other tragedies slipped through the cracks and should not have been allowed to have a gun (perhaps under present law).

• "U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 2008 and 2010". You say that we need to state briefly in the lead what the decisions were. And yet when this was previously done, you objected that it was a POV problem for the lead to "remind us... where the right to bear arms is to be found." Catch-22? The SCOTUS decisions can be briefly mentioned in the lead, and explained in the body of the article.

• "There remains an unresolved debate regarding the relationship between gun control, violence and other crimes". There is a sentence in the body of the article that says: "There is an open debate regarding the relationship between gun control and violence and other crimes." The article then elaborates "The numbers of lives saved or lost by gun ownership is debated by criminologists. Research difficulties include the difficulty of accounting accurately for confrontations in which no shots are fired and jurisdictional differences in the definition of 'crime'." This seems like a perfectly valid approach: summarize in the lead, elaborate in the body. The sentence is especially useful in the draft lead because it clarifies that the landmark decisions of SCOTUS did not resolve everything.

• "The debate regarding both the restriction and availability of firearms". This is verbose and redundant, and I have no objection to fixing it.
• "...has been characterized by a stalemate"; not only could that be better worded, but it wrongly implies that the right to keep and bear arms is necessarily at odds with reducing crime.
• I have no objection to inserting some of the material from the lead of the recently-merged "Arguments" article into the lead of this article. However, I also think that the draft lead above is fine, NPOV, much more informative than the present lead, and support using it to construct our final product.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you get what I'm saying. The lead should be able to stand alone i.e. people should be able to read it and understand what the article is about. There's no use saying "if they don't know what that means they just have to read the article and they'll find out." Also, you seem to be taking my critique personally. There's very little point in asking us to consider your draft seriously if you're then going to fight to the death to prevent any change to the text! And I'm not contradicting myself by saying that it should be stated what the SCOTUS decisions were. You're first draft didn't state it either. What I said was that the paragraph gave (me) the impression of re-iterating that it's all about the Second Amendment. The second version is much better, but needs to be fleshed out. Scolaire (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not taking this personally. It is somewhat frustrating though. You said that the second draft (quoted atop this section) is much better, but I'm not aware that you have accepted anything in it. Yes, leads ought to make sense standing free, and that was my intent. Let's not try to go out of our way to find flaws.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The second version of the fourth paragraph (or at least the first sentence of it) is much better than the first version of the fourth paragraph; that's all I meant to say there. As for the rest, by asking me not to "go out of my way to find flaws" you are confirming that you are taking it personally. I did not go out of my way to disparage your text. I gave a considered and honest analysis of it, which is what I thought you were asking for. If you'd prefer the executive summary, I think it's poorly written and not a good basis for even an interim lead. And I have nothing to say beyond that. Scolaire (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I responded carefully to all your points, instead of dismissing them as merely personal reactions. But I do think that arguing to remove the word "hunting" as redundant to the word "sports" is definitely going out of your way to find fault. It doesn't follow the source, and disregards the obvious fact that hunters may hunt for meat rather than for sport.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I can't speak for others, but I am not ignoring your input. I'm digesting it. There is no need to rush this. I already said I was working on a proposal - after your previous 2 or 3 proposals - but then you proposed another one. So I've had to stop composing to read again - though I don't see a big difference between this draft and the others. Please give me time. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Take your time. If you read what I've said, you'll see that I made only two proposals for the lead, the second replacing the first.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Anything, but I am dropping this - at least for a little while. I just realized the I am being Wikihounded, and I'm seeking advice on what to do. Lightbreather (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Until we mention that Gun control advocates want to ban the private ownership of firearms I don't think readers will understand the "debate". While most gun grabber organizations have dropped the call for an outright ban on all firearms, most firearms owners don't trust them. Per WP:MOS proponents need to be named and their views given. I am not convinced we need Gun control and this this article. J8079s (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If we get rid of this article then we'll probably have to get rid of a lot of others too. By the way, this article does already mention that 74% oppose civilian handgun bans, while 49% say gun-sale laws should be more strict.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Lede

After being invited here by Lightbreather, I have restored the lede to what seems to be more in line with consensus. I should point out that as someone who is on the gun-control side of the fence that I don't necessarily agree with the wording, so I think it needs work. I will make some more edit suggestions in a bit. I just think we should tackle it one issue at a time (and with plenty of discussion) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 07:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, the invitation was to a GROUP of people engaged in a similar, concurrent discussion on another page. The invitation was meant to start a dialogue on mulitiple items of concern, already touched upon above, but which I will break out again, below, if they're no clear enough above. Lightbreather (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

When you invite people to participate in a discussion, the last thing you should do is have ownership issues with it. Editors will show up and make whatever edits they feel are appropriate. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

POV shift: fear of tyranny as the primary pro-gun argument

After the recent (4 days ago) merger of another article with this one, the Security against tyranny and invasion subsection of the of the former, which had been the fifth subsection under Rights-based arguments, was made the first subsection. Why? (The move seems to be based on one opinion poll.) Lightbreather (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Some subsection has to come first. If the first one is there because of an opinion poll, that seems like a good reason absent a countervailing reason why another subsection should come first. Do you have such a countervailing reason? Also, note that another cited source says: "The greatest fear for ... the pro-gun culture would be an attempt by the government to collectively disarm all the country’s citizens, rendering them helpless against tyranny." (Emphasis added). Also, readers need not infer that tyranny is "the" primary argument; when matters of equal weight are presented, one has to come first. Sometimes that choice is alphabetical, chronological, or even random.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

To be sure we're talking about the same sources, they are these:

• "Mackey, David and Levan, Kristine. Crime Prevention, pp. 95-96 (Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2011): 'The greatest fear for ... the pro-gun culture would be an attempt by the government to collectively disarm all the country’s citizens, rendering them helpless against tyranny.... They promote the use of firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities, and also promote firearm safety.'"
• "65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny, Rasmussen Reports (January 18, 2013)."

And the separate quotes are: "The greatest fear for those ascribing to the pro-gun culture would be an attempt by the government to collectively disarm all the country’s citizens, rendering them helpless against tyranny." And (from two paragraphs and four attributions later: "They promote the use of firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities, and also promote firearm safety." Lightbreather (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not understanding the question. Those are indeed two of the footnoted sources, as you know.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I have re-ordered the subsections alphabetically, to avoid a protracted discussion. I don't think the ordering of sections justified a POV tag, especially given the cited sources, and given that no alternative ordering was ever suggested. But the point is now moot, and the template ought to be removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Wilcox, Clyde; Bruce, John W. (1998). The changing politics of gun control. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 1–4. ISBN 0-8476-8614-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
2. Wilcox, Clyde; Bruce, John W. (1998). The changing politics of gun control. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 4. ISBN 0-8476-8615-9. For many years a feature of this policy arena has been an insurmountable deadlock between a well-organized outspoken minority and a seemingly ambivalent majority{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
3. Cite error: The named reference SpitzerCh1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Mackey was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Cite error: The named reference Rasmussen was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. Cite error: The named reference Valdez was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. "What's in Obama's Gun Control Proposal". New York Times. January 16, 2013. Retrieved 2013-01-30.

• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• B-Class Firearms articles
• High-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed United States Government articles
• Unknown-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• B-Class United States Government articles
• Low-importance United States Government articles