Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 4

used firearms
What the heck? What source says that guns have to have been used before the gun show loophole applies to them? This kind of editing is downright disruptive. Felsic (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Pre-owned" would be accurate. And please don't assume the intent was disruptive.  "Pre-owned" and "used" are almost interchangeable, and it's not surprising that another editor would use the wrong term.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Everything is owned by somebody. "Pre-owned" is a euphemism created by used car dealers. There ain't nothing in any rule I've seen about this. Making up stuff is disruptive. Felsic (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As soon as you drive a car off the lot, a car is "used". As soon as you walk out the door of a gun store, a gun becomes "used".  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your definition of "using a gun" is walking through a door with it? Weird. But it's a madeup definition. A gun and a car are different things. One has to be licensed and registered for safety purposes.
 * If an FFL goes out of business he can convert all his brandnew, never used stock into a private collection and sell it as a private seller. Don't make up crap and edit war to keep it in the article. That is disruptive. Felsic (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If an FFL goes out of business, converts all his stock to privately owned status, keeps it 1 year and a day, the former FFL can the sell the used guns at that time, no paperwork required. However, manufacturers warranties tied to the guns do not have to be honored, as the warranty only applied to the original private owner, which in this case, was the FFL upon conversion of the guns to private collection status.  Once an item is owned by a private owner, even for minutes, the item becomes used, and manufacturer's warranties do not apply under Federal law.  (There are exceptions, where a manufacturer provides a lifetime of the gun warranty, but only a few vendors offer such warranties to repair "used" guns.)  Nothing weird about understanding Federal law.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah? And where does it say that all that is part of the definition of gun show loophole? Give us a source that directly connects the concepts. Otherwise it's just OR. Disruptive OR. Felsic (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * By Federal law, all new gun sales go through FFLs. No exceptions.  This is true in all states.  It is illegal for a Federal Firearms Licensee to sell a new gun to any private individual without a background check.  The gun show loophole applies only for sales in the secondary market, between private individuals.  The difference is when the sale occurs, whether in the primary, new firearms marketplace, or in the secondary, used firearms marketplace.  The GSL applies only to sales occurring in the secondary market, for sales conducted between private individuals, of used firearms.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have a copy at hand at the moment, but that information is taken from the FFL guidebook issued by the BATFE. There's probably a copy on their website. I remember this from when I looked into applying for an FFL. By the way, I have purchased as collectibles several "unfired" firearms over the years from private parties and needed to go through an FFL because of their age, not being used or not. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

We need to go with what the citations say. That way we avoid WP:OR and WP:Synth. Please cite your sources when making an argument for a change, it will make this so much easier, I promise. Darknipples (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It would help if editors would assume good faith, be less confrontational, and work with other editors. Fortunately, that is mostly the case here.  Here is an RS reference that gives the distinction of used vs. new firearms:  The GSL applies only to selling used firearms.  ALL new firearms sold to private individuals must be sold through a Federal Firearms Licensee, by Federal Law.  No exceptions.  Dealers can sell between themselves, all while the firearms remain "new".  But, upon a firearm being sold to a private individual, the firearm become "used". Some refer to these as secondary market sales.  The GSL only applies to used firearms being sold from one private individual to another private individual, both of whom reside in the same state.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Where does it say that the gun show loophole only applies to used or second hand guns, ? The cite says... "The absence of regulation of second-hand sales is often referred to as the "gun-show loophole." It may imply it, but it doesn't seem to explicitly say that "new" retail guns are beyond the scope of GSL. Are there any other sources that say this? Another issue to consider is the [WP:Rs]]. The citation you are using is an "opinion editorial". According to RS guidelines..."Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." We are also not minding WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Darknipples (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting take on the situation, but lets keep in mind that fully citable BATFE regulations apply to ANY firearm in the possession of an FFL holder, new or used, and regardless of where its sold; a gun show, a store, or a private home. According to those same regulations, no non-FFL holder can purchase firearms directly from a domestic manufacturer or purchase & import them from an foreign manufacturer. So by default, private party firearm sales/transfer are for "used" guns, but for the sake of accuracy. Referring to any firearm as "used" is misleading, we should just refer to them as "primary" and "secondary market" firearms with clear definitions of each in the article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , with all due respect, the article is about GSL, not just BATFE regulations. Unless we have a citation that explicitly says... "GSL only refers to used guns", we shouldn't use it. All we have is just a single Op-Ed, and we are putting it in the the lead, without any discussion first? This does not seem right. Darknipples (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , with all due respect, the article is indirectly and most definitely about BATFE regulations or at least the lack of them. Its the source of the GSL. The "controversy" about it is what the media reports, but the laws regarding certain categories of firearm sales/transfers are quite clear. Not taking this into consideration just reduces the quality of the article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you believe, wholeheartedly, that using | this Op-Ed, which doesn't explicitly say that GSL only refers to second hand guns, in the lead sentence, improves the quality of the article, despite LB, Felsic, and my objections? Shouldn't we at least try to compromise or discuss it first? Darknipples (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Quick tangent discussion, I don't want to derail the main one


 * , if any article Lead is an appropriate summary of the body of the article, it should not need any citations to back up its statements, as any claim made should have adequate sourcing in the body of the article. So in direct answer to your question, no, I do not believe that the linked Op-Ed should be used in the Lead.


 * It is correct about one thing, "nonprofessional used-gun traders are subject to none of those requirements", the Op-Ed just states it VERY badly. What they meant was "non-licensed gun traders..." The Op-Ed also confirms one of my earlier statements, "absence of regulation of second-hand sales is often referred to as the 'gun-show loophole'" whether the phrase "second-hand" or "secondary market" is used. The GSL is not just about background checks, its about tracking, accountability, AND background checks. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see your point now. This makes more sense to me. Thanks for your patience with me, as I now feel more confident that I can support this distinction in the lead. Especially now that Miguel has found another fairly RS cite. I would say now that unless we find conflicting RS cites that state otherwise, GSL generally refers to "second hand" or "used" firearm sales. Well done. (Correction needed) As it reads now..." Private party sales of used firearms are only allowed between residents of the same state." There is a standing issue that needs to be addressed with regard to interstate transfers (See intrastate TP section). I am removing this until we have finished the discussion there in effort to reach consensus or compromise. Please do not revert until this has been sorted out. Darknipples (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Felsic and Darknipples are spot-on here. The lead should be returned to its simplified state. Add these details to the article, if there are high-quality RS supporting them, into the section where WP:DUE, and then - if necessary - add to the lead. Otherwise the lead is going to become another inscrutable gun-control article lead that hides the salient points. Lightbreather (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your opinion, but its starting to look like we need the input of uninvolved third parties to prevent exactly what you fear will happen for either pro-gun or pro-control interests. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, I am not attempting to "butt-in" in any way, but this comment concerns me. Perhaps I'm just being "over-protective", and I'm not going to call it a threat at this point, but Scalhotrod said "its starting to look like we need the input of uninvolved third parties to prevent exactly what you fear will happen for either pro-gun or pro-control interests." My instinct was that if someone said something like that to me, I would want someone to notice..., what does Scalhotrod mean? Darknipples (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , Given the contentious nature of this subject, it never hurts to have another set of uninvolved eyes on the situation. We're all way too enmeshed in this subject to be completely objective. It's something in the past that Lightbreather has requested several times that I now appreciate the benefit of using via either a Request for Comment (RfC) or a similar process. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, they are not spot-on. Rather, they both appear not to know US gun laws.  I agree with Scalhotrod, that not taking into account that the GSL applies only to the secondary market, i.e., used, gun sales is a very important point.  The average reader on Wikipedia needs to be told the truth, that the GSL does not allow dealers to sell new guns to individuals.  To imply otherwise, through intentional omission of important points, is both factually inaccurate and, more importantly, appears to be pushing a pro gun control viewpoint, contrary to writing a balanced POV article.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Another reference to secondary market, i.e., used, firearms and the GSL here. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

, could we get the relevant text and a page # please? This thing is like 30 pages long. You are sure this say, GSL only refers to "second hand firearms"? Darknipples (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Read the second and third paragraphs on p. 22, along with footnote 125 at the bottom of the page. Yes, the GSL pertains to secondary market, only, sales, between private individuals.  Every primary market sale (new firearm) sold by a dealer can be sold to an individual only after a background check is performed.  It is strictly for the secondary market, i.e., used guns, that the GSL applies.  As an analogy, would you think it reasonable to have to sell a book from your private library to another individual only after paying an exorbitant fee to a Federal Bookseller Licensee (FBL) to make sure that the buyer was not a terrorist, who might use the contents of the book for ill?  In the secondary market, within the boundaries of a state, there is no Federal jurisdiction to restrict private party sales of books, or most any other private property.  On the other hand, a state can require you to purchase, say, a copy of the Bible or Koran, only if it were purchased through a Federal Bookseller Licensee (FBL) holder.  It would be exactly the same thing, only applying to the First Amendment, instead of to the Second Amendment.  But, both are rights contained in the Bill of Rights.  The perspective matters here, of how the arcane ATF regulations work to restrict private commerce, that is conducted solely within states, for which the Tenth Amendment provides protection for the rights of the people.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Another interesting reference:   On page 4, we find, ‘’In 1995, Philip Cook and colleagues published a study that has done much to shape and clarify our understanding of how firearm commerce operates.  Buying and selling by licensed retailers is now referred to as the primary market for firearms; both new and used firearms are involved. The secondary market consists of transfers by unlicensed private parties such as the individual attendees at gun shows.’’ - And, by virtue of the arcane FFL laws, only guns previously purchased in the primary market largely exist in the secondary market.  (For now, I will disregard the so-called 80% lower ghost gun firearms.  They also can be sold in the secondary market, if not originally made for resale!) On page 7, we find, ‘’Private-party sellers are not required to ask for identification. They cannot initiate a background check, except in Delaware, Nevada, and Oregon, where they may do so voluntarily. There are no forms to fill out, and no records need be kept. And even if the purchaser is a prohibited person, let alone a non-prohibited person with criminal intent, a private party may sell him a firearm without committing a crime. The key is that while it is always illegal for a prohibited person to buy a firearm, it is only illegal to sell a firearm to a prohibited person if the seller knows or has “reasonable cause to believe” that he is doing so.”’’  On page 21, we find, ‘’Some private-party handgun sellers at gun shows make a point of checking the buyer’s driver’s license to be sure that they are not making an illegal transfer to an out-of-state resident.’’  Now, usually at gun shows, ATF agents watch to make sure that such checks are done.  If they are not done, then the ATF agents usually interview the seller and the buyer.  The usual trading mechanism followed is that each person in the transaction will show their driver’s license to the other party, and, the seller, especially if previously harassed by the ATF, will then hold their driver’s license up high to show that the check was done. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , Nice find! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(page 22 cite #125) "Furthermore, the report mentioned that secondary, or used, firearms are commonly trafficked to Mexico. Officials noted that, “while ATF may be able to trace a firearm to the first retail purchaser, it generally has no knowledge of any secondhand firearms purchases from gun shows or pawnshops ... without conducting further investigation” because federal law currently “permits the private transfer of certain firearms from one unlicensed individual to another [also described as “secondary transactions”] in places such as at gun shows, without requiring any record ... be maintained by the unlicensed individuals, an FFL, or other law enforcement authority.” Related to private transactions, the GAO report highlighted that the lack of required background checks for private firearms sales may also be problematic in efforts to combat gun trafficking." Darknipples (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

What is proposed
So from the above discussion and the sources given, what is being proposed to be added to the article? And where within the article is it being proposed to be placed? Lightbreather (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your trying to accommodate the guys' others' concerns, but the thing is, we need to get this straight in the article... and then add it to the lead. Otherwise, we discount the hard work we did - all of us - to get the article where it is today, which I think, barring a few additions, is in pretty good shape. (Why I've asked for a peer review.) Lightbreather (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "the guys' concerns", given your efforts of late, that was a fairly odd choice of words . --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What we have just accomplished is establishing a common understanding of the topic we are trying to describe. This enables all of us to choose sources and add content from a seemingly neutral standpoint. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I have removed these two sentences from the lead paragraph until we introduce the material into the article.
 * Under federal law, only Federal Firearm Licensee (FFL) gun dealers are required to perform background checks and maintain records for retail purchases of firearms. Private party sales of used firearms are only allowed between residents of the same state.

Again, what is proposed to be added to the article? Let's finish that, and then finish the lead. Lightbreather (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Have we appropriated updated the body content first??? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't read any meaning into "guys" that isn't there. You and FE and ME are men, that's all. Yes, we've accomplished a lot, through hard work. Let's not stumble this close to the finish by pressuring the lead. Which as of right now has nothing in it that is not in the article body. If there is unfinished business in the article body, let's finish it. Lightbreather (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a diplomatic effort, on LB's part, to sort things out as per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, so I support this discussion as a precursor, to further consensus on the issues at hand. That being said, at this time I feel that GSL generally or typically refers to "used firearms" or "second hand sales", given Miguels AGF cites. Working this into the lead should be a matter of consensus. It should be, IMO, entered to the body at this time. I am comfortable with this | diff, until an agreement or consensus is reached. Darknipples (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest a Disambiguation Section in the article that includes all the little important details and aliases of GSL. Something to this effect..."AKA etc...etc...(There is already an entire TP Section full of them | GSL Disambiguation AKA) GSL (generally?) refers to secondary market sales and transfers which the ATF believes has contributed to gun trafficking and purchases of firearms by prohibited buyers." &  -- Darknipples (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, if I understand your suggestion for a Disam section, would this be something like the "Terminology and context" section from the Gun control article? It's purpose is to narrow the scope of the subject as well as well to give context to terminology used across a variety of articles.


 * It's wording has been changed over time and even its usefulness has been questioned, but it's remained so I assume that it has some practicality. By the way, I'm not vested in that particular section title, its just what made sense to me at the time. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly vested in "Disam", I just think it's important to create a new more appropriate section for these attributes. GSL isn't quite as complex or as broad as GC, IMO, and we've already got the cites for AKA mentions, we just need to determine which, if any, are notable. Darknipples (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

POV tag and lead section
With this edit the POV tag -- "The neutrality of this article is disputed" -- was removed from the article. I'm going to put it back. The article is still quite biased towards a pro-gun-control perspective. As before I'm focusing on the lead section, which should provide a neutrally worded summary of the subject of the article. The current version of the lead falls far short of doing so, more by what it omits than by what it says. If the lead were changed to be something along these lines, I might agree to the removal of the POV tag:

A reference for the state laws referred to in the second paragraph is here, on the website of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * - I originally thought the tags were removed because these issues had been addressed within the current lead. I think it's possible the issue of POV still exists in the article because certain questions in regard to WP policy & guidelines may have not been answered satisfactorily. The Teahouse is also an excellent resource for this. Here are my questions in regard to your proposal.


 * What specifically makes the current lead biased towards a pro-gun-control perspective? Please address these specific issues individually. For example, which points do you feel are being omitted?
 * Which citation(s) is your suggested paragraph, "The gun show loophole is technically not a loophole...", taken from? Please include the original context for it.
 * As far as the rest of the article, perhaps we can bring these issues up in their respective talk page sections under the heading POV, so that we can sort them out more easily and continue to move this article forward. Darknipples (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The lead that I'm proposing, though still very brief, presents a more balanced and complete overview of the subject than the current version. For example, a basic and important fact is that some states already require background checks for private sales -- a point that was included in the lead pretty recently.  But, let's look at this from another angle.  Would you agree to change the lead to what I'm proposing?  If yes, fine, let's see if other editors go along.  And if not, why not? — Mudwater (Talk) 11:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Mudwater, you did not answer any of my current questions in your response. The information on state laws is already listed in the legislation section. I tend to think moving this to the lead would make the it unnecessarily long, but my main concern is the POV tag you have placed because of the issues in the lead you eluded to but have not specifically addressed. I will be more than inclined to give my opinion on your proposed edits to the lead once you respond to the questions I have already asked. Respectfully, Darknipples (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't agree to what you're proposing. It's adding material to the lead that is not in the body.


 * Here is the current lead for comparison:


 * Darknipples has asked really good questions. What are your answers?


 * I don't have a problem with your proposed second paragraph, if you first make sure that the Legislation section has the same material in it, sourced.


 * Honestly, even the current lead leans toward a pro-gun POV because it doesn't even say what gun control advocates think of the loophole. (And your proposed third paragraph disguises your take of gun rights advocates opinion of the loophole in Wikipedia's voice. At least the current lead says "Gun rights advocates say....") Lightbreather (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , to your second question ("Which citation(s) is your suggested paragraph, "The gun show loophole is technically not a loophole...", taken from?"), please see Talk:Gun_show_loophole - according to the discussion and RS there, private sales were not regulated by GCA '68. FOPA '86 intentionally clarified the definition of a private sale.  None of the various changes to the law since then have made private sales illegal.  A loophole is, according to Black's Law Dictionary, ""an allowed legal interpretation or practice unintentionally ambiguous due to a textual exception, omission, or technical defect, evades or frustrates the intent of a contract, law, or rule."  It was clearly not Congress's intent to outlaw private firearms sales - if it had been, it could have outlawed them at any time.  One source: "However, 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." (emphasis added).  Another source: "Gun-control advocates' campaigns in Colorado and Congress to "close the gun-show loophole," begun in response to Columbine, aim to reverse a key feature of the 1986 law by requiring criminal background checks and purchase records on private sales at gun shows. Colorado proponents suffered a setback Friday when a legislative committee killed a gun-show bill backed by Gov. Bill Owens." (emphasis added).  There are more, but the talk page here is long enough without me copying and pasting whole sections.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you please be more specific in your answer to the question about which source "The gun show loophole is technically not a loophole" is from? The discussion you linked to goes back to July 2014 and contains dozens of citations! We do have some RS (Kopel, the NRA) who say that the gun show loophole is not a loophole, but there aren't enough high-quality RS to justify saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that "The gun show loophole is technically not a loophole." To do that, we would have to engage in WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. Lightbreather (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) First off, when we are still actively editing the body, why are making changes or even discussing the Lead?
 * 2) Second, why do we need what either side SAYS or THINKS about the issue in the Lead other than to say that the issue is debated by various groups? The specific detail of who believes or says what can be in the body. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead is biased towards a pro-gun-control perspective in two ways. (1) It misrepresents the position of gun rights advocates, some of whom do not think that requiring background checks for private sales would exceed the government's authority, or that it would be a "prelude to confiscation". (2) More importantly, it omits basic, important points about the subject of the article, and as a result it obscures the facts, and encourages the attitude that the current laws aren't strict enough. You can tell what these basic, important points are by reading my proposed rewrite, but I'll be happy to summarize them here. The lead should say that licensed gun dealers are required to perform background checks. It should say that some states already require background checks for private sales, and that some of those states require that records of private sales be kept. And last but not least, it should explain that the gun show loophole is not a loophole. About that last bit, take a look at the Guinea pig article. The lead explains that these animals are not pigs, and they're not from Guinea either. Similarly the lead of this article should explain, as in my proposed text, that the gun show loophole is not a loophole, nor does the federal law say anything different about gun shows vs. other private sales. What I was thinking was that we as editors could agree on this point. Remember, a loophole (according to Wiktionary) is "a method of escape, especially an ambiguity or exception in a rule that can be exploited in order to avoid its effect," and the rule in question is that licensed firearm dealers are required to perform background checks. To further clarify -- and in hindsight I probably should have said this before -- I feel very strongly that a reasonable person can agree that the gun show loophole is not a loophole, while simultaneously taking the position that requiring background checks for all private gun sales is a really great idea, that would make it much harder for criminals to get guns, while not imposing an undue burden on law-abiding gun owners. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As per your requests...


 * "It misrepresents the position of gun rights advocates, some of whom do not think that requiring background checks for private sales would exceed the government's authority, or that it would be a 'prelude to confiscation'". ✅
 * "The lead should say that licensed gun dealers are required to perform background checks". ✅
 * "It should say that some states already require background checks for private sales, and that some of those states require that records of private sales be kept." I feel this does not belong in the lead because it would turn what should be a sentence into an entire paragraph. These details are already in the body, in the Legislation Section. Also, it does not necessarily define GSL, so to speak. To compromise, I have moved it to the very top of the body of the article to give it prominence. (see LB's edit) ✅
 * "And last but not least, it should explain that the gun show loophole is not a loophole." This is already in the lead where it says... "Some advocates for gun rights say that there is no loophole". Wikipedia is not advocating gun-control simply by including an article about GSL, nor will it advocate for either side of the issue. If anything, it would be fairer to add..."some gun-control advocates "believe" their is a loophole"... to balance the mention of what gun-rights advocates believe. Or even simply remove it all together. However, we are trying to accommodate the views of everyone involved in improving this article, not just some.✅


 * I am going to remove the POV tag until we have discussed these compromises that have been made in good faith, at which time we can decide whether or not to leave it off or put it back. Darknipples (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Good job, DN. I agree about the lead sentence. It is very common in these gun control articles for the lead sentences to get up into many dozens of words and become almost inscrutable. FWIW, I also added the LCPGV source to the Legislation section, so that we could add about D.C., and I added the capital to the last, lead paragraph that mentions federal and state legislation. Lightbreather (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm putting the POV tag back on. Please don't remove it until "there is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved", per Template:POV. Also the tag itself says, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." At the rate we're going, that won't be any time soon. — Mudwater (Talk) 20:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You are the one that put the tag on, it wasn't a consensus to put it there. Also, you either did not read my notation, or you just ignored it so that you could put the tag back up. I'm removing it one last time. Please examine my good faith efforts and discuss it with me before putting it back on, again. Darknipples (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If you think the article is not NPOV it's beholden on you to give specifics as to why, and not just long replies without citing sources. Also, are you planning on startin an WP:NPOVN discussion? The one there is simply about whether or not the title "Gun show loophole" is POV, not about the whole article. Lightbreather (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Re POV template use
For anyone who hasn't read it, or hasn't read it recently, here is the link to Template:POV. I think what it says about removing the template is important here:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:
 * 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.

Number two applies here: No satisfactory explanation has been given. So please get specific, and work toward a resolution, or remove it (or let it be removed). Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, everybody. I'm going to take a break from editing this article, and participating in this discussion. Maybe a short break, and maybe not so short, we'll see. Please carry on without me. Cheers. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of removing it simply because its clutter. We're all actively discussing the article and changes/updates will hopefully be eminent. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 08:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

-- Since Mudwater has recused themselves of editing this article for the time being, I'd like to see if any of you feel that this portion of the lead is still necessary since it is actually already the majority of the legislation section... If not, I think it should be removed as it already exists in the body and, IMO, does not "define" GSL in any seemingly useful way. This is only a suggestion, and I am interested to know if there is a possible consensus for it. Darknipples (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Seven gun show loophole bills were introduced in Congress between 2001 and 2013, but none passed. The U.S. capital and 17 states require background checks for some or all private firearm sales. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of used firearms between private individuals, whether at gun shows or elsewhere."

Notice of discussion of lead sentence at WP:RSN
Re this lead sentence that was reverted today (along with a couple dozen other mostly gnomish, separate edits):
 * Gun show loophole is a term referring to the ability of private buyers at gun shows being able to purchase firearms from private sellers without a background check.

I have started a discussion at RSN called Gun show loophole. --Lightbreather (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Did anything happen with this? I see that it was archived. Darknipples (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the link to the archived discussion, and in a nutshell, it was stated that this lead sentence:
 * Gun show loophole is a term referring to the ability of private buyers at gun shows being able to purchase firearms from private sellers without a background check.
 * is sufficiently sourced.


 * I might add, it puts the focus on the buyer, not the seller. Lightbreather (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The lede currently calls this an "ability". Yet, this is clearly synthesis, as it is not called an "ability" in any of the cited references. This is a serious synthesis problem. "Freedom" would be a better choice of wording, here. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it is synthesis, unless there is a cite stating to the contrary, however I'm not an expert on semantics. I'm not sure what the precedent of RS verification is either. My only other possible suggestion, in terms of a possible compromise, would be to refer to it as a "legal right", but as I said before, I don't know the precedent that is set by WP on RS confirmed. Whichever one means a better article rating is the one I'm likely going to vote for. Darknipples (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The cites uniformly do not call this an "ability". You can search all of the cites using a word search, and "ability" is never used; not even once. How about we address the POV-section tagline issues with the following rewording: "Gun show loophole is a U.S. political dysphemism referring to private buyers at gun shows purchasing firearms from private sellers in legal commerce without a background check or a record of the sale." This would largely address the POV concerns, without using the word "freedom" which is what it is at present. -- In the majority of states, there is no law that prohibits private, unpapered, sales of firearms. -- The GSL is more of a lacuna than a loophole, but it is not called the Gun Show Lacuna, although that would actually be technically correct. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice
OK, that tears it.

1. I am determining which noticeboard to take the photo to, and I'm taking it there.

2. I am asking here to stop disruptively inserting his synthesis of the words of a Montana gun-rights group leader into the lead.

3. Since it was already decided at NPOVN, I am also asking anyone who might be tempted to stop disruptively removing the brief, failed legislation sentence from the lead.

--Lightbreather (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, perhaps WP:DRN is the appropriate forum? If so, should we include all three items in one request, or have three separate requests? --Lightbreather (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think DRN should look at everything concurrently. Save them some time and effort. Darknipples (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Introduced legislation - notability?
Is legislation that has merely been introduced notable? The article contains reference to two pieces of legislation that were introduced, but never passed. Given the volume of legislation that is introduced in a typical year, do either of these bills meet the criteria for notability? I would like to clean up the "Legislation" section by 1) moving paragraph 1 (Clinton) under "Legislation" to the "Past" section of "Issues, stances, and positions" 2) deleting paragraph 2 (HR 2324) and paragraph 3 (HR 141) as I do not feel that either of these bills meet the threshold for notability, and 3) changing the title of the section from "Legislation" to "Current Legal Status." Thoughts? Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First, notability is important for determining if a topic can have its own article. Second, yes a lot of legislation is introduced every year - but not a lot of it gets covered by the advocacy groups and media like gun-control legislation. If it's covered by a lot of advocacy groups and the press, it gets a place in the appropriate article or articles. Lightbreather (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel that this applies to some legislation that never "made it" (e.g. Manchin-Toomey), but I don't think any of the above really meet the threshold for notability. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * These proposals were as hotly debated after Columbine as Manchin-Toomey and AWB 2013 were after Newtown. The fact that they've faded from the forefront of the debate doesn't negate their contribution to the topic, which has been discussed for 16 years now. Lightbreather (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't remember them being as hotly debated - the debate centered around the NICS improvements with mental health records being added. (Also, these were after Virginia Tech, not Columbine.)  Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Faceless Enemy - GSL became most prevalent in the early nineties after the Columbine_High_School_massacre which coincided with the release of this document https://www.atf.gov/files/publications/download/treas/treas-gun-shows-brady-checks-and-crime-gun-traces.pdf . There are plenty of citations from that time period and directly after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting which mention GSL. Darknipples (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree; my point is that the 2009 bills were 15 years after Columbine, and the 2013 bill was largely eclipsed by Manchin-Toomey. Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This section gives undue weight to failed legislation that died in committee with no support. No need to to cite failed bills. (There are thousands of failed bills; Wikipedia is not a list of failed bills that died in Congress.) Have removed these sentences. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Miguel Escopeta, this is the arguement that Faceless Enemy made. Did you read my response? Some failed bills get a lot of attention in WP:RS. That's how we decide whether or not they have a place in an article (or an article of their own) - not just by whether or not they failed. Lightbreather (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @ Miguel Escopeta - Simply deleting this information from the article seems premature at this point. I ask that you wait until there is a compromise or consensus. Darknipples (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)






 * Should new bills be introduced, they can be added. Nothing wrong with that. This is the power of Wikipedia to cover current events. But, there are thousands of failed bills. Historically low importance bills, that only had 15 supporters, are not significant, no matter how much one might like them to be.  It is undue weight to portray them as being more than what they were.  There is no need to cover them.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, so:
 * Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009 = Three news hits, none of which I'd say hit the threshold for notability (Prison Planet, a press release from an advocacy group, and a single editorial by a different advocacy group). No newspapers. Two book mentions, one as an example of a failed bill one and the other only as a footnote. Two mentions in scholarly articles, one as an example of "laws that bit the bullet," the other as an example of current legislation. No mentions on JSTOR.
 * Gun Show Background Check Act of 2009 = One news hit (Prison Planet). No newspapers. One brief book mention, as an example of a failed bill. One mention in scholar as example of "laws that bit the bullet." No other scholarly mentions besides the aforementioned book and a dead website. No JSTOR.
 * Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2013 = One news hit, which is nothing more than a list of pending bills. No newspapers. No books. One scholarly article, possibly as a footnote? No JSTOR.
 * Again, I don't feel that any of these are worth mentioning at this point; none of them have any chance of becoming law any more, and none of them made it out of committee or received widespread coverage. Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be best to replace them with laws and bills that did pass, in relation to GSL, such as the Brady Bill, FOPA, and and the most recent legislation presented, then, put the older bills specifically related to GSL in the footnotes, or "see also" section? Darknipples (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What effect did FOPA or the Brady Bill have on GSL? Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * May I suggest you look through the talk page and at the many citations for these references, first? Darknipples (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at WP:NPOVN
There is a discussion at WP:NPOVN about this: Undue weight to mention failed bills about the subject of the article Lightbreather (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the link to the archived discussion, and in a nutshell, there is no general prohibition of failed bills; it depends on whether or not the sources find the failed bills notable/relevant. Lightbreather (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But, the overall consensus of this discussion was that failed bills generally do not merit inclusion. If a member of Congress is notable for only one failed bill that never passed, then it is ok to mention it in an article on her.  But, to mention failed bills in an attempt to synthesize some greater importance than the members of Congress themselves found to exist seems to be a POV push, instead of being merely informative.  Looks like there is no need to include the failed bills in this article, from the discussion noted here: the archived discussion  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * the overall consensus of this discussion was that failed bills generally do not merit inclusion? There was no such consensus. Lightbreather (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was. Consider this part of the discussion:   Kinda hard to ignore what was actually said.   Hence, this edit, to remove this from the lede, where it most certainly is undue weight: .Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I know this may come as a surprise, but I did not see a "consensus" either, one way or the other...Here is what I noted from the editors not involved in editing this article, that leads me to believe this does not warrant NPOV, but rather refers us to whether the cites are more about the bills (failed or not) rather than about GSL. We can compromise with better cites and not just have to remove them because of an alleged NPOV issue.


 * "I think its a question for talkpage consensus, but definitely not general prohibition." -
 * "If the cites about the concept typically mention a bill then it goes in here. If the cite is mostly about the bill and just inherently ties by name and known background seems not enough by itself, it should be on the article topic and look and weight the explicit statements more than our understanding of unstated context." -
 * " I think a brief mention of a specific bill that did not pass is probably fine...so long as most of the bill that did not pass is about the specific article and not just some pork that was attached to a larger bill." -
 * Darknipples (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd also say that I'm fine with leaving this | diff (and that entire portion of context) out of the lead. It's already in the legislative section. Am I missing something here? Darknipples (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As you may have noticed, I did leave it in the legislative section. That was intentional on my part.  It's OK there, for completeness.  But, it clearly does not belong in the lede.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My thinking is that it's undue weight on laws that are passed to not include those that are not, especially since they were popularly supported by the people, vehemently opposed by gun rights groups, and prominently covered in the media - the ones that passed as well as the ones that did not. Lightbreather (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No offense to or  here, I didn't include their remarks because they are involved in the article. What matters here are the "impartial" editor's takes, IMO. Darknipples (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a POV push to push failed legislation to greater prominence than it received by the legislators, who clearly did not give it as much importance. Had they felt it important, they would have passed a bill.  But, they did not.  It is undue to feature failed legislation in the lede.  I am ok with it remaining in the legislative section, however.  Some might think it undue even there, though.  If so, they can speak up.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ME, the only editor on RS that seemed to "lean" in the direction you're going was Capitalismojo, and they are technically not impartial. Again, it's not just about whether these bills passed or failed, it about the citations, and whether they are mostly about GSL or not. Do a word search and lets see how many, and or which, existing cites mention the bills that you want to just delete. I would do it but I don't know how (lol). If we can't replace them with more DUE cites I will back you up on removing them. Darknipples (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am gathering even more information about this, and I have asked ME to stop adding unsourced material. If he is going to demand that we have to provide sources to use the word "ability," he surely shouldn't be adding whole POV sentences without source citations. Lightbreather (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sometimes even V, RS sources are simply wrong. It happens.  Shuffling bills off into committee early is considered by some to have been a non-existent bill. But, a published book that is V, RS and that meets Wikipedia standards, is not always right.  Mea culpa.  One thousand wet noodle strikes for me.  It happens.  (But, it was not intentional.)  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Support and accompanying Senate bills

 * H.R.2377 - Gun Show Loophole Closing and Gun Law Enforcement Act of 2001 had 81 co-sponsors (74 Dem, 7 Republicans) and related bill S.890.
 * H.R.3832 - Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2004 had 6 co-sponsors (4 Rep, 2 Dem) and related bill S.1807
 * H.R.3540 - Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2005 had 6 co-sponsors (4 Dem, 2 Rep) but no related Senate bill
 * H.R.96 - Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007 had 18 co-sponsors (15 Dem, 3 Rep) but no related Senate bill
 * H.R.2324 - Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009 had 113 co-sponsors (110 Dem, 3 rep) and related bill S.843
 * H.R.591 - Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2011 had 31 co-sponsors (Dems) and related bill S.35
 * H.R.141 - Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2013 had 47 co-sponsors (Dems) but no related Senate bill (Manchin-Toomey had better support)

I am not suggesting that we add this detail to the article - that would be undue - but I would like to settle this dispute, considering the above, plus sources that have already been added to the article re this federal efforts issue, that these bills aren't relevant to the discussion. --Lightbreather (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I still do not think we should include bills that never made it out of committee in the lede. This is undue weight.  There are multiple thousands of failed bills each year in the House and Senate.  Putting such emphasis up in the lede still seems undue.  I am OK with the details being kept in the Legislative Section, however.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This seems in line with what the impartial editors were talking about. It's only undue weight if these bills do not speak directly to the article's subject, and by looking at their titles, it's hard to figure out why we're still talking about it, no offense ME. If these bills have nothing to do with the article, then why are they titled as such? Are they completely unrelated? Seems unlikely. Darknipples (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Couldn't we just leave this thing alone until the requested peer review is done? Lightbreather (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Since you've added the tag let's kick-start the discussion. I take it you disagree will all the impartial editors that did not see a problem with mentioning bills related to the article, despite their views that it did not matter if the bills passed or failed. Can you cite a WP guideline or rule that states... "bills related to the article (that did not pass) are WP:UNDUE? Darknipples (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The major problem is WP:UNDUE. The lede should contain a summary of all the important points in the article.  But, it is hard to make a case that failed bills, bills that never garnered enough support to get out of committee, and never went up for a vote, should be placed in the lede and given great prominence.  In the article, fine.  But, not in the summary.  They were unimportant.  After all, if the 4 Senate Bills and 7 House Bills had no importance in the Congresses to even go up for a vote, why should they be given great prominence in the lede?  Seems simple to me.  WP:UNDUE is the issue.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

POV-lead
A 2012 statement by "Joe Olsen," head of a Minnesota gun rights group, re the gun show loophole was added to the lead. I think it is probably WP:UNDUE for the body, and certainly undue for the lead.

This is the source:, and what it says:
 * All that and the rest of the bill would do, they [Olsen's group] said in one of many denunciatory press releases, was "impose unnecessary deprivation of liberty, hassle, delay, and cost on Minnesota's 1.5 million legitimate gun owners," as straw-man buyers at gun shows accounted for only a small percentage of weapons acquired by gangs and criminals.

Here is where it was added to the lead paragraph (and as synth, IMO):
 * Others see the gun show loophole as providing liberty for "legitimate gun owners".

And here is what it looks like now:, at the end of the lead's "gun rights advocates say" paragraph.
 * The head of a Minnesota gun owners group said of a state legislator's effort to close the gun show loophole that doing so would only "impose unnecessary deprivation of liberty, hassle, delay, and cost on" the state's "legitimate gun owners."

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Before adding this undue Minnesota gun owner's opinion, these were the two advocacy paragraphs:
 * Gun control advocates want to extend the background check requirement to nonlicensed firearms sellers at gun shows. [17 words]


 * Gun rights advocates say there is no loophole, and any federal law requiring background checks for sales of firearms between private unlicensed citizens, whether at gun shows or not, would exceed the government's authority, be a prelude to gun registration, and endanger gun owners' Second Amendment rights. [48 words]

I can live with that for now. But adding the undue guy-from-Minnesota material makes the gun rights advocates paragraph... 90 words. Lightbreather (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see how this belongs in the lead, either. What one person from one side of the issue, thinks, does not seem DUE. Not to mention "cart before the horse" etc. If we are going to add it to the body we will need to balance it with a gun control advocates quote. Perhaps we should just count the references and try to restore WP:Balance by #'s in a more remedial fashion? Darknipples (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Scalhotrod has removed Minnesota-guy from the lead, so maybe that will be the end of it. Lightbreather (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Your edit summary says to look at the talk page and I am looking but aint seeing much. Does anyone aside from hoplophobes use the phrase "gun show loophole"? WeldNeck (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hoplophobe is actually more of a dysphemism. It is not really pejorative.  The word is usually not considered uncivil, but as being more of a statement of fact, describing a condition of an irrational fear of weapons.  Mostly, it is a common condition of people who have no history of  gun culture in their personal lives.  Yes, it is mostly only these people who use the term "gun show loophole", as this term, gun show loophole, is considered to be pejorative by members of the gun culture.   Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I consider your question offensive, and off-topic. Darknipples (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * its a shame you feel "offended" and all but that is off topic. What is on topic is this: where on the page is there a discussion of who uses the term "gun show loophole"? You see, my edit was reverted with the explanation of "see talk" but I aint seeing anything here justifying that revision. WeldNeck (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Using this term in such a derisive manner to stereotype any and all gun control advocates seems unjustifiable, as per WP:POV RAILROAD.Darknipples (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY
I am trying to get this article into shape for a GA nomination. To accomplish this, I strong suggest that we follow the advice of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. I have every intention of including the "there is no such thing as a gun show loophole" argument in the lead, but not before we analyze the number and quality of sources and choosing the best, and summarizing it properly. This recent addition to the lead is an example:
 * The use of the word 'loophole' implies that federal regulations allow otherwise prohibited retail purchases ('primary market sales') of firearms at gun shows, but this is false; no additional sales are permitted at gun shows than in any other location.

The author this statement is attributed to - in Wikipedia's voice - is an authority on energy and environmental issues.

Let's leave the lead brief, very brief, until we've polished up the body, and then re-compose a NPOV and properly weighted lead - please. Lightbreather (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this sums it up fairly well...(page 36 - Congressional Research Service:Gun Control Legislation)

"Federal firearms licensees—those licensed by the federal government to manufacture, import, or deal in firearms—are required to conduct background checks on non licensed persons seeking to obtain firearms from them, by purchase or exchange. Conversely, non licensed persons—those persons who transfer firearms, but who do not meet the statutory test of being “engaged in the business”—are not required to conduct such checks. To some, this may appear to be an incongruity in the law. Why, they ask, should licensees be required to conduct background checks at gun shows, and not non-licensees? To others, opposed to further federal regulation of firearms, it may appear to be a continuance of the status quo (i.e., non-interference by the federal government into private firearm transfers within state lines). On the other hand, those seeking to increase federal regulation of firearms may view the absence of background checks for firearm transfers between non licensed/private persons as a “loophole” in the law that needs to be closed." http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/156521.pdf - Darknipples (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Creating WP:Balance

I would like to discuss the feasibility of entering the word "controversial" into part of the lead in efforts to resolve the WP:NPOV tag on the article. While I still do not feel it is proper for the word "controversy" to be placed in the title, it may be beneficial in resolving certain issues with those editors that take exception to the title as is. This is in effort to improve the article in good faith ASAP. Here are some citations in which the word controversy has been conjunctive with the GSL...Whether they have WP:Weight, I would refer to those with the most knowledge and experience.


 * http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/20/gun.control/ "Controversial gun control measure included with Gore's tie-breaking vote - 1999"


 * http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-show-pictures-2013-9 "Here's What You Can Buy At The Biggest Gun Show In The Southeast - 2013"


 * | William J. Clinton p. 1032

Please let me know your thoughts (everyone). Darknipples (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

LEAD DISCUSSION

Let's all discuss Miguel's recent | BRD here, shall we? Darknipples (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The elephant in the room is the disarmament portion. Why not simply include it?  The GSL is not about gun shows, per se.  Rather, it is about eliminating private sales, and ultimately requiring gun registration, through the establishment of keeping records, as a prelude to gun confiscation, all as a part of the plan of disarmament for removing guns from society.  There is not even a "loophole", as the laws are clear.  Private sales are legal in most states.  Private citizens don't even have any way to do a Federal background check, being legally prohibited from accessing the NICS database.  By including the disarmament portion, though, we achieve a neutral point of view, I think.  Discussion?  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So are you abandoning the idea of writing an article using the neutral point of view? That's what this edit does. It has a lengthy quote, right there in the intro, from a partisan and it repeats another partisan's opinion in Wikipedia's voice. That's not balance. That's advocacy.
 * According to "gun rights" proponents around here, guns are great big things fired by artillery brigades and battleships. Rifles and pistols and shotguns are "firearms". So there's really no such thing as "gun shows". It's all a dysphemsism for a euphemism for a non-existent neologism created by a media cabal solely to grab guns using the clever technique of not calling them firearms. That's the real "elephant" here. Felsic (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Felsic, with all due respect, I realize you may be frustrated, and I empathize, but the idea here is to be productive, not just confrontational. Let's try to find some common ground and compromise if at all possible. Darknipples (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Compromise? That's funny. Here's what compromise looks like: Felsic (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Miguel, with regard to your BRD, the issues I have are with the following statements...
 * "Gun show loophole is also a euphemism used for the disarmament of private citizens"
 * "This implication is false. The real criticism is leveled at secondary market sales by private citizens."
 * I feel we need to edit or remove them in order to maintain balance, weight, and non-POV. I appreciate your efforts to resolve the issue and I am willing to work with you. I've taken your suggestions in the past and added to the article as you have suggested of my own accord. I just want to find a middle ground, as I'm sure we all do. Please try to see this from both sides of the issue, and how it looks in WP Voice. Respectfully -- Darknipples (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What is it about the second reference, citing the euphemism, that is false? Consider this quote from the second reference: Quote=Even though the overall disarmament goals appear the same, euphemistic labels now cloak legislative proposals that would do very much more than innocuous titles suggest, for example, a bill to protect police officers, and gun show loophole...  How does this not cite the statement of Gun show loophole is also a euphemism used for the disarmament of private citizens?  The issue that needs addressing in the lede is that the very title of gun show loophole for the article is offensive, pejorative, and factually inaccurate. (There is no loophole, it's just Federal law, and it's not about gunshows, either, but for disarming citizens, and preventing private ownership of firearms.  What is wrong with giving balance to the extremely POV title of gun show loophole, and the blatant attempt to register, and, ultimately, confiscate all guns?  And, yes, I know the technical differences between guns and firearms, but, in vernacular English, guns is often used as a catch-all for collectively discussing firearms.)  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * FellSick, please discuss. We have tried the B and R of BRD. D, Discussion, is now needed. You reverted. Now, please explain what you propose instead.  As it stands, the lede is now extremely POV and I have retagged it as a POV violation and as a POV section problem, too.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "FellSick"? Is that supposed to be an attempt at humor? Ha ha ha. Hilarious. Even funnier is your "D - discussion" bit. I don't see any reverts that I've made to this article. You must be confusing me with this guy named "FellSick". What a joke. Felsic (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Protected
The article has been fully protected two days per a complaint at WP:AN3. Please continue to discuss any disputed matters here. Be aware that the article is under discretionary sanctions. Admins may take action if anyone makes clear through their editing or comments that they hold strong views on gun control and intend to push the article to conform to their own point of view. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Folks, can't we play nicer with each other? We seem to have been fairly civilly discussing the article and making real progress, there's no need for escalation. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Peer review
FYI: I have requested a peer review on the article. I haven't given up on the idea of nominating this for good article designation, and I think a fresh perspective will do us all some good. Lightbreather (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Bummer. (Request for) peer review closed due to cleanup banners. Oh well - back to work on it tomorrow or Monday. Lightbreather (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Related article
Since it is a related article with some overlap (similar background, but the gun show loophole is talked about less and less - after about 15 years of being central to the debate - and, at least since Sandy Hook, has shifted more toward universal background checks)...

I have split what was the "Universal background check" of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System into it's own article: Universal background check. (FWIW, I originally created that section last June.)

There will be work to be done to not over-duplicate related material. (More focus on the earlier gun show loophole debate here, more focus on the more recent universal background check debate there.) --Lightbreather (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I feel the two concepts are so similar that they should be merged. Perhaps "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States"? Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Gun show loophole was the center of debate for 15 years. The focus has shifted to universal background checks - and they are related, have similar roots - but they are each notable in their own right. (Consider one example, that we have separate articles for National Firearms Act and Title II weapons. They are related and have similar roots, but they have their own articles.) Lightbreather (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The NFA article covers a particular law, whereas the Title II weapons article covers firearms regulated under that law. Any implementation of UBC would automatically close the GSL.  The two are much more closely intertwined conceptually.  UBC and the GSL are essentially the same thing.  The issue of the GSL has been almost completely eclipsed by UBCs.  It's like a car having a redesign between model years.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

In regard to the statement, "Any implementation of UBC would automatically close the GSL", I could use some clarification. The only way I can wrap my head around this assumption is if UBC was instituted at a federal level. Even then, the fact that private party sales of guns in other countries are still legal may infer that GSL would still exist even after a federal regulation instituting UBC in the US. Some states have already essentially instituted UBC and some have not, yet, GSL still exists. So, the inference that "any" implementation of UBC would automatically "close GSL", in any universal sense, without providing any notable citations to that effect, confuses me. - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose, per Faceless Enemy, and per my posts in the section. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This needs to be reworded so everyone knows what they're voting for. Up top is a notice that UBC was split into its own notable article from NICS. It wasn't a proposal. But this article's page proposes merging UTC into this article? And an "oppose" vote supports that? Lightbreather (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Oppose" means that I oppose splitting "Universal background check" from this article. The merge proposal is to merge them back together.  Meanwhile there's a proposal to rename this article to "Background checks for firearms sales in the United States".  So I don't see the need for any rewording, though if you have a specific suggestion, feel free to post it here. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge Universal background check into this article - Gun show loophole?
Created because of this "Oppose" vote on the notice that this section is a subsection of. Related discussions "Gun show loophole": NPOV article title and Related article.


 * Oppose. Both "Gun show loophole" and "Universal background check" are notable in their own right. Lightbreather (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support merging back the article that Lightbreather split off earlier today, for the reasons that Faceless Enemy explained earlier in this section, and as per my posts in the section. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You did catch that I split Universal background check from National Instant Criminal Background Check System and not from this (Gun show loophole) article, right? Lightbreather (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't catch it, and thanks for explaining. But my merge proposal still stands.  There should be one article, "Background checks for firearm sales in the United States" -- a merger between "Universal background check" and "Gun show loophole".  And the "National Instant Criminal Background Check System" article should remain separate. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, per above. Really though, both articles need to be merged into something with a more accurate and neutral title. Again, it would solve the whole NPOV title thing and would allow for a more comprehensive history of the debates and developments surrounding the issue.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't see how or why the alleged concept of the absence of background checks should be merged with the alleged concept of UBC when they both mean two very different things, respectively. Could someone provide some citations, precedent, and or, explanation as to the logic in doing this just in order to change or dissolve the GSL title, please? Darknipples (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The answer is here. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The answers here indicate that the title of this article is not POV. Lightbreather (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is strange. Last year, I created an article called "Assault weapons ban" because there are numerous AWBs in the U.S. besides the federal one that expired 10 years ago. The article that I created got renamed to "Assault weapons legisation." To this day, when you google "assault weapons ban" (go ahead and try it) it looks like the only AWB that ever existed, at least according to Wikipedia, is the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that expired 10 years ago - even though there are active state bans. Now, there is an effort to ensure there is no "Gun show loophole" article or a "Universal background check" article, despite the fact that they are both notable topics, commonly known by those names. Lightbreather (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Certainly some editors have agreed that the article title "Gun show loophole" does violate the NPOV policy. But what I meant by my previous post was that the gun show loophole, falsely so called, is a subset of the issue of background checks for firearms sales in the United States.  As I explained in the linked post, these are not two different subjects. — Mudwater (Talk) 03:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought that we must "bear in mind that GSL has evolved from only concerning private sales at gun shows to all private sales. Even though the meaning has essentially changed over time, the term has not."? Again, the two concepts are so closely intertwined that it is impossible to separate them.  However, neither term fully encompasses the issue...hence the rename and refocus proposal below.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Reply It might help if you provide some citations, precedent, and or, explanation as to the logic in doing this just in order to change or dissolve the GSL title. I apologize if wasn't clearer as to why the two terms mean essentially the opposite of one another. As a friendly reminder, the issue is still being discussed in another talk section - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't want just a rename - I want to broaden the scope of the article to include the GSL issue, the UBC issue, and other issues closely associated with background checks for firearm sales in the United States. The fact that we get past the issue of the title's neutrality is just icing on the cake. Regardless, the two concepts are nearly identical and should be merged (per your earlier comment), and, once merged, neither "Gun show loophole" nor "Universal background checks" is adequate.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Reply: Support on the condition that WP:NPOV is resolved and the GSL title remains. If you truly do not wish to just rename the article then we may reach a compromise in my case. With regards to GSL's etymology, and it's references FOPA, UBC could possibly be considered a result of GSL, however, without good citations and references it would be entirely WP:SYNTH. The lack of which I have previously noted and requested, respectfully. Even though they are entirely different political concepts, if the appropriate citations and context were in line with WP guidlines and policies, it could be possible. The point is to improve the GSL articles' efficacy and quality as soon and as easily as possible. I feel a compromise in this vein may be amicable as long as the GSL title remains, but I reserve the right to wait until all editors have clarified their positions to make a final call at this juncture. - Darknipples (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , my point is that, once merged, neither "UBC" nor "GSL" are accurate or adequate. I'll ping you once I've created the full "background checks" article - hopefully you'll see what I mean then.  :) Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

After looking at the UBC article I see the amount of overlap. It looks like they just took everything from the GSL page in order to create the article, which doesn't make sense, since many of the citations and most of the content doesn't focus or even mention UBC. In other words, the problem is with the UBC article, not GSL. UBC needs a lot of work and I have decided to focus half of my attention on correcting those issues I mentioned. I look forward to seeing your new article and I will be happy to help out with it any way I can. ;-) As far as the accuracy of the GSL article I respectfully disagree. Darknipples (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Makes more sense to go the other way. Felsic (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - These are related, but separate and distinct topics. They each deal with specific issues of law that vary from state to state and at a Federal level and have debate, although with crossover, that is unique to each subject. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)