Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2014 May 26

= May 26 =

Re Wiki Post of Amanda Todd
I have spoken with family of Amanda Todd. They have been un able to edit. A UK paper stated Amanda hung herself and seems so many rolled with it afterwards. That is all assumption as it was never released how she took her own life. Why can't they edit something as serious as that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reportamandatruth (talk • contribs) 04:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Context: Suicide of Amanda Todd —Tamfang (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia just summarizes outside sources, we're not a journalistic organization. We don't report the truth, just what other sources have printed.  Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't the place to fix this.  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be better to say that we report what we hope is the truth. That's why "reliable" sources are required. In this sad case, the OP would need to find suitable sources which contradict what the article says, otherwise what it is is the best we can do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I found a reliable source stating that the cause of death was not released, and I updated the article a few minutes ago. It's unfortunate when mainstream news media publish incorrect information, or rumours/misinformation that is poorly sourced. However, those are the sources we have to work with. At least in this situation, I was able to find a source with better information. OttawaAC (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've further edited it to confine any mention of hanging to the Investigation section. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But I've been reverted. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * By someone crying censorship. But what's the practical difference between "reportedly" and "rumored"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that a newspaper/news website can publish just about any information credited to an anonymous source, and it's up to the readers to decide if the newspaper is reliable and worth taking at face value. It's not unusual for law enforcement members, or other people connected with an investigation, to speak off the record. What they say may or may not be accurate. Unfortunately, with the mad rush to be the first out with a story, it seems like more news outlets are publishing rumours, which they often have to correct in short order. In this case, we don't know the exact facts, because they haven't been released by the coroner in detail. That hasn't stopped a lot of news outlets from running with speculation. OttawaAC (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of the two sources cited about hanging, only one actually say anything about hanging, and it doesn't even say "reportedly", it states it as a fact. So, the question is, is that particular source a valid source? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I moved the source that mentions hanging down to the relevant sentence in the Investigation section. I edited the sentence that I had previously qualified with "reportedly", to remove the reference to hanging. We'll see whether or not those changes stick. I think they should, since they more accurately reflect the info in the sources cited now. OttawaAC (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And...I got reverted for "Undue". How bogus. One or the other source for that statement on "hanging" is inaccurate; one mentions it, one doesn't. The statement should accurately reflect the information in the sources cited. Period. I reverted the revert, and will now take a break from this topic til tomorrow to avoid an edit war. If anyone else wants to join me, I'll probably be requesting edit changes on the Talk page tomorrow. OttawaAC (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was referring to putting weight onto that one source when there are numerous that mention it explicitly by hanging. 5 sources v 1 and choosing to go with that 1 would be pretty unreasonable. (Unless it came from TIME and the other sources were probably blogs, then it would be right) Tutelary (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A somewhat related question. Aren't the coroner's report and the autopsy report matters of public record?  Or no?  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A coroner can order that their findings not be released, and I couldn't find the coroner's written findings on the BC gov't website. It may be because there is an ongoing investigation, but I don't know. There was no autopsy. OttawaAC (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I was not aware of those details.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, I am the editor that reverted the attempt to change 'hanged' to 'found dead'. What ultimately is the deciding policy is WP:Verifiability. Wikipedia operates on the status of verifiability, not truth. We cannot take primary sources in this situation, as they wouldn't be sourced to anything. However, if reliable sources were to report on a public announcement that she had not hung herself, we would be able to use those references to verify that and get it changed. I ultimately do not have a vendetta against changing it to 'found dead', but I go by what is written in the sources. The vast majority of the reliable sources explicitly mention hanged so that's what we were using. I have no qualms to considering other sources, giving that they'd be reliable. Albeit a public announcement would probably get the attention of reliable sources, which in turn could be used. Tutelary (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because something is verifiable as being published by some supposedly reliable sources doesn't make it trustworthy. You should always question where and how those sources got their information, to evaluate how much confidence you can have in their reporting. I understand that's not always possible, but that doesn't change the fact that the question needs to be asked. You also need to question whether multiple sources got their information from the same source. If they got their information from the same source, then consistent reporting by multiple sources is not corroboration. The OP seems to be suggesting that the widely reported account is wrong, without saying what the truth is. If the OP's connection to the victim's family is true, that's strong reason to question the accuracy of the details reported in news sources. "Being found dead" is consistent with "hanged", but less specific. How much diligence have you done before you decided that you could confidently stick with the "hanged" description? --108.16.202.209 (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia operates on verifiability. We need to be able to make sure that content is not just made up. We do not establish original research on Wikipedia. The only way to prove an edit is not original research is to provide a source for it. Ultimately, we go by what the sources say. If we're attempting to establish fact that she was not hanged, there needs to be a source for it. Personally contacting the family and asking whether she was hanged would be constituting original research. What would not be original research would be them releasing a statement on the true cause of death, reliable sources reporting on that, and then using those sources. The fact of the matter is that a good amount of sources have said that she was found to be hanged, and that's what I attempted to make consistent with the article. I am more than ready to question sources brought to the matter, and am patiently awaiting the bringing of sources to this discussion. I've already made a small list of the ones which describe her as being found to be hung on the talk page of the article. Tutelary (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If the coroner's report was not released, where did that source get the story about how she died? Has any published source stated where they got that alleged info? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know, and frankly, it doesn't matter, because we go on what the sources say. Even if they're wrong, that's the tenant on Verifiability policies. You can propose a change and hope that within the RfC and everybody thinks it's a good idea, you can get that changed. However, as it sits, as long as a reliable source says it, that's what we go with. We can't insert original research into articles, either. (Though I acknowledge that it does not apply to talk pages.) My own edit inserting 3 reliable sources for the 'hanged' comment have been removed and reverted and I have attempted to discuss this on the talk page, yet no response as of yet. Tutelary (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * While being in a published source is a requirement, it is not a ticket to inclusion. If there has been no official cause of death released, any source alleging to know the cause of death is automatically suspect. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not matter. As long as the source is reliable, we go by what it says. My UNDUE comment was referring to the use of one source when a good amount of sources contradict that one source is putting undue weight onto that source. This discussion should be happening on the talk page, not here. Tutelary (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We are not slaves to sources, and if something is doubtful we don't include it. If the manner of death has not been released to the public, how can there be any "reliable" source for the manner of death? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, we are. That's why no original research was enacted, so that we would have to explain and backup our additions with reliable sources. The only way to prove an edit is not original research is to provide a reliable source for that edit. As it sits, the notice of how 'some media reported X', and then saying 'but the official cause of death was not released' is not original research, but is instead putting undue weight into that one source. Additionally, I am not going to entertain your request for the search of why media outlets reported it as a hanging. You can do that as you want, but any edits to the article must be reliably sourced. Tutelary (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're failing to make an important distinction here. The no-original-research thing says we can't have material not supported by reliable sources.  It does not say that we must have material just because it is supported by such sources.  If we have doubts about the veracity of a source, it is sometimes reasonable to leave it out.  News articles in general are relatively low-quality sources.
 * There is no question of "undue weight". Undue weight is an issue when sources disagree.  But the sources do not disagree.  Some of them make more specific claims than others; as far as I'm aware, there is no point where they make incompatible claims.  It is not necessarily unreasonable to defer including the more specific claims, and stick with the more general ones, while awaiting higher-quality sources such as books. --Trovatore (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a distinction, and the latter is what has happened. There are innumerable sources that state specifically that hanging was the cause of death. The current formulation of the sentence as it sits is
 * The cause of death was reported in some media as hanging.[20][21][22][23] However, the exact cause of death has not been released.[24]
 * There is too much weight put into that one source (24) while the other 4 directly contradict it. Using 'some' is also a weasel word but that's not the majority of the problem. Additionally, the word 'hanging' has been scrubbed out of at least 4 different places in the article, under what I would consider censorship. I am more than willing to go and participate at WP:DRN over this. Tutelary (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you arguing that the coroner's report has been released? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to commit original research to find out. You can do that on your own time. Tutelary (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors have been known to hide behind the citation rules in order to force a particular viewpoint into an article. You can't just count sources like a scorecard, as they often emanate from a single source, and often not a reliable one either. For example, when Michael Jackson died, there were many news outlets reporting it - but the source for each was TMZ, which is not regarded as reliable, and it was kept out of the Wikipedia article. Once the story was independently confirmed, it became valid to include it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Googling the matter, I am hard pressed to find any reliable sources claiming she hanged herself. They mostly simply say "committed suicide". So, to claim a specific method requires cherry-picking of sources that make that claim. That is true "undue weight". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're implying I'm a POV pusher, I'd like formally beseech that you focus on the content, not the contributor. Additionally, what you're referring to is considered a 'questionable' source. WP:QUESTIONABLE. The four sources listed are not considered questionable sources, and have editorial control, which is why they're considered reliable. No matter how I see it, putting 'some media' in that context and scrubbing out all mentions of hanging except for that single section is WP:UNDUE. In addition to your response, please provide the sources, as I have already provided mine on the talk page. Talk:Suicide_of_Amanda_Todd. Tutelary (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you've cherry-picked sourcing to support a viewpoint, then something's wrong. One item I noticed near the top of the google list is this one, from ABC News, which doesn't say anything about hanging. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, I am going to ask you to stop commenting on the contributor. Also, Google search results are ultimately filtered in a filter bubble based on your last search queries which you cannot turn off. I have not cherry picked sourcing, and I am going to ask you one more time to stop commenting on the contributor. Tutelary (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a comment that POV-pushers often try to hide behind, so you'll have to do better than that. So, tell me, why do the sources that assert a particular method of death outweigh those that don't? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not call or implicate me as a POV pusher, as I will consider it a personal attack. Anywho, it's because of the quantity of them. See the talk page of the article. Tutelary (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did. Your sources are not reliable. They're tabloids, i.e. "scandal sheets". Find some proper news organizations making the same assertions, and you might have something. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

How is banning guns in U.S. going to work, exactly?
I don't want to start a debate about the second amendment. That is not the purpose of the reference desk. My question is ONLY about the practical/logistical aspects of a gun ban that pro-gun control people seem to crave. How is it going to work.

Let us assume, temporarily, for the purpose of this question: guns are bad for society; permissive gun laws lead to murders; it is in society's interest to ban guns; a national gun ban is going to be passed by Congress, and the local governments will be on board with it as well and won't defy the federal government.

What, then, are we going to do with the millions of people in the US who already have legal guns? Do we, as right-wing anti-gun-control people fear, send out armed government agents to round up and confiscate all guns? Or do we have sort of a grandfather clause that states that if you already have a gun, that's fine, but people aren't allowed to buy any *new* guns? If the latter, how does that prevent any gun murders? There would still be plenty of legal guns floating around. If the former... yeah, good luck with that.

I am looking for a sensible and concise outline of how the proposed gun ban is going to work. Thank you.--24.228.94.244 (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're going to get an answer to this without a debate. My short answer: you would not get a Congress that would pass such a law without greater social change on this topic than there has been. A society that elected such a Congress would be a lot more willing to give up guns, and to accept a degree of state interference with gun ownership. If you want to see a worked example, look at the increasing strictness of UK gun laws over the past 40 years. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Alex, I agree you would have to completely change society to get this to work. US has a different culture and history from UK.  But doesn't someone out there have a plan on how the gun ban is going to work in *this* society?--24.228.94.244 (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * To the person who hastily collapsed my question and said we don't do "debate" or "predictions" on the reference desk, let me clarify. I'm not asking for YOUR predictions. I'm asking what pro-gun control organizations' plan is. Every good organization/political movement has a plan.  Pro gun control organizations are real, not hypothetical.  What is their plan for how a gun ban would work? Thanks.--24.228.94.244 (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not what you originally asked. And the tone of your '...yeah, good luck with that' in your original post belies your attempt at neutrality. Want to know what gun-control organisations say? Go and read their own literature. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Reference desk doesnt demand that the tone of the question be neutral. If it does, I'm sorry for not following that rule.  Could you help me find some of the literature where their plans are outlined?  Please be specific and show me what parts of the literature explain the answer to my specific question.  Thanks.--24.228.94.244 (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It may not be a rule that you have to phrase your question neutrally, but had you done so it wouldn't look like your question is just a rhetorical question framing an ignorant strawman argument in an attempt to induce cognitive dissonance in yourself rather than try to understand what other people reasonably believe.


 * There are no serious attempts by legitimate and powerful gun control groups to completely ban all guns overnight ever in the US. Anyone who has seriously thought about the subject knows better. Do some gun control advocates wish we could get rid of them overnight? Yes, but they know that's not going to happen just as much as most people know the average citizen is never going to buy an M60 machine gun (or need to, for that matter). Restricting and reducing the sales of guns based on their capabilities, where they're bought, and who's buying them]? Sure. Gun buyback programs? Sure. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Presently, I am deeply skeptical that a gun ban would work. That's why I sounded very sarcastic. That doesn't mean I'm not open minded or willing to entertain attempts to change my mind. I don't even like guns, by the way.  I just know America loves their guns and won't give them up easily.  Thank for trying to contribute. to answering my question, and I will read up on some of the programs you linked to.--24.228.94.244 (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You're being skeptical about something that no one advocates. That's why you're coming across as close-minded.  You're not presenting something that doesn't exist as the beliefs of gun control advocates.  You're lying to yourself about what they believe, and asking people to argue in defense of something no one believes.  It's no different than a gun control advocate asking why the NRA supports shoot babies and the elderly with bazookas.  00:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's true no one advocates banning ON ALL GUNS immediately and I've not encountered anyone who thinks it's feasible to start taking people's guns away. But I've been reading the news, and some newsworthy people have stated that they believe strict gun control laws will prevent mass shootings (even shootings that don't involve semi automatic weapons) and that we NEED to start passing these laws to save lives.  I am just looking for more information on how these stricter laws are going to reduce the number of legal guns, especially in so-called red states.  How is that going to happen?--24.228.94.244 (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If you can't see the tone problem with comments like this, I can't help you. I've already told you - if you want to know what gun control organisations say, go and check their own publications. This is not the place for what is blatantly a debate. Now I'm off to sleep in a country which has about one firearms massacre a decade. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I did check their publications; I didn't find anything terribly informative in terms of reducing the number of legal guns on the streets. But people at the reference desk are good at looking up facts that I'm unable to find, so that's why I came here.--24.228.94.244 (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * One might also have thought the USA hated marijuana and same-sex marriage, but times change. Heck, 90 years ago one might have supposed the USA hated alcohol, too. What loud politicians say, for or against gun control, is no guide to subtle shifts in public sentiment. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * A constructive response here is to suggest a look at a country that relatively recently brought in much more restrictive gun control laws than it used to have. See Gun politics in Australia. In particular, after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, the country was ready for much stronger restrictions on gun ownership. The conservative government led the way. Eighteen years on, gun laws are not an issue. HiLo48 (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * thanks, I didn't think about Australia, and I read the article now. I was a bit confused by the category A/category B stuff. How hard is it to get a handgun in Australia compared to getting a hunting rifle?  And do people conclude that the drop in gun violence is attributable to the restrictions on handguns, or on more powerful semiautomatic weapons, or to something else?--24.228.94.244 (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, what was the estimated compliance rate on the mandatory gun buyback in Australia?--24.228.94.244 (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what people conclude because, as I said above, it has become a non-issue. Hardly anybody ever even discusses the issue now. We haven't had a mass shooting since 1996. As for handguns, as I understand it, apart from law enforcement people, only gun club members (target shooters) can own handguns, and the guns must be stored separately from ammunition. There was a lot of objection to the buyback initially, but when people realised they could get cash for guns they hardly ever used, and which would become illegal, it became quite popular. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I see. And plenty of people still own hunting weapons, correct? It would seem that, due to their difficulty to conceal, that it would be a lot harder to commit a mass shooting with a hunting weapon (though there have been cases in the US, like that guy who climbed the belltower, and the elemnatry school kids in Arkansas, etc.)--24.228.94.244 (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Not many city people own hunting weapons, and most Australians live in big cities. Country folk have shotguns for killing foxes and rabbits, but it's not a big part of the population. Hunting is not a big activity in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You might also want to look at Gun politics in the United Kingdom, since (as that article states) "The UK has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world." --Viennese Waltz 10:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The answer to the OP's question is, "It won't" work. No serious discussion of banning guns is going on here. The issue is "regulation" of guns - such as how or if it's possible to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics, like that guy in California the other day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well quite. Even lefties like me who can't think of many good moral reasons for people to own guns don't think it's sensible (or necessarily right) for a government to say "OK, guns are banned". Things that might work would include a more stringent licensing regime, more narrowly defined categories of legal firearms, and more closely vetted sales. It's still legal to own certain guns, under certain circumstances, here in the UK - and yes, there are still homicides with legally owned firearms. But it's unthinkable that a government would just up and ban something that so many people already have. (Well, I already mentioned alcohol prohibition...) AlexTiefling (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I take everybody's points about the UK being different to the USA, but this article describes how it was done in the UK - after handguns became illegal there was an amnesty when you could hand in your weapon at a police station. There was no "round up" as the OP suggests. Alansplodge (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Preceding any such move, at least in a relatively democratic nation, there must be consensus from the public. No such consensus exists in the US. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "consensus". The only (albeit flawed) way of finding out the consensus on a single issue such as this is a referendum, and AFAIK the US doesn't do referenda.  I don't pretend to understand the constitutional process in the US, but if the President and/or Congress wanted to push through gun control legislation they could do it by virtue of the fact that they were elected, regardless of what some imagined "consensus" might be. --Viennese Waltz 12:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that the people have to be willing to give up their guns. If not, when the government tries to confiscate them, there will be massive bloodshed - which seems counterproductive to the reason for trying to ban guns. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that the 2nd Amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". That would prohibit Congress from passing a law banning the private ownership of guns, unless:


 * 1) The Supreme Court reinterprets the 2nd Amendment to only apply to state militias, specifically "well regulated" meaning that they are run by the state government and don't let people take the guns home with them. This would require a majority vote by the Supreme Court.


 * 2) The 2nd Amendment is repealed, which would require 2/3 of Congress or 3/4 of the states.


 * Considering the powerful lobbying group, the National Rifle Association, would go all-out to stop such a repeal (or the appointment of Supreme court judges who might vote that way), you'd probably need like 90% of voters to favor such an action to overcome all this inertia. So, you would have a powerful mandate if such a law was ever passed.


 * The more practical effect would be if you could ban carrying and selling guns, rather than owning them (although you could ban owning large numbers). This would allow people who carry guns in public to be arrested.  As for the ownership of existing guns, you'd need to wait until they break down with age, although the ability to make one using a 3D printer would allow for replacement.  Since most gun crimes are committed by young people, they would need to obtain guns somehow, as soon as we get a new batch of young people.  StuRat (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A prevailing theory among gun advocates is that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. An attempt to confiscate guns would be seen as exactly that, and there would likely be a large-scale civil war. Which would kind of defeat the point in trying to ban guns in the first place. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't buy the "large-scale civil war" argument. Guns were banned, collected and destroyed in the UK without those kinds of dire consequences.  When the 1997 law was passed, effectively banning handguns, 162,000 pistols and 700 tons of ammunition and related equipment were handed in and duly destroyed...peacefully and certainly without rioting in the streets.
 * The 2nd Amendment argument is flakey too, you can read those words in any of half a dozen different ways and conclude that private gun ownership either should or shouldn't be allowed. The UK also had dusty old rulings: "Subjects which are Protestants ...(Eeek!)... may have Arms for their Defence, suitable to their Condition, and as allowed by Law." in the 1689 Declaration of Rights - and it was also accepted Common Law: "The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.".  Sounds kinda similar to the spirit and intent of the US constitution...and for good reason - the people who wrote these things came from the same era and the same mind-set.


 * The problem is that surveys have shown (eg ) that the percentage of US voters who want more agressive gun control always hovers around the 50% mark. With intense lobbying from the gun manufacturers and their proxies (eg the NRA which gets more than half of it's funding from gun manufacturers), nothing much is likely to change because not enough people want it to change.  If a clear majority Americans really wanted gun control - they'd find a way around the poorly-written, badly-thought-out and *way* out of date, 2nd Amendment in a heartbeat. eg "Sure, you're allowed to bear arms...cudgels and pocket-knives" - that's within the scope of the 2nd Amendment - nothing there says that you have the right to bear "guns" any more than it says that personal nuclear weapons are allowed.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Constitution does not define or limit the type of arms that the people are allowed to have. That's left up to the Congress, which of course has long banned truly military weapons. The assault rifles are in kind of a murky area. They were illegal for a while, but that law had an expiration date on it and was not renewed. In the case of the recent California looney (which I expect is what prompted the question), the guy had done everything by the book, up to the point where he started shooting at everybody. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems to me that any attempt to limit the 2nd Amendment to small weapons excluding firearms would meet no small amount of opposition from those same lobbying groups you mention. The problem with banning guns, of course, is that the only people you need to take guns from are those who already have them ("Duh," you say). In the UK (and evidently in Australia) those with guns didn't seem too opposed to the idea of handing them over. The sociopolitical situation is quite different in the United States, especially in the South, where you have a huge number of civilian paramilitary groups who would have no problem telling you that they will use their weapons to defend what they see as their constitutional right. "Civil war" might be an exaggeration, but perhaps imagine 500 simultaneous Wacos.
 * That aside, historical documentation is somewhat spotty on what the 2nd Amendment means and why it means it. The Supreme Court opinion in DC v Heller is particularly illuminating in that regard. Did the Founding Fathers really intend for the 2nd Amendment to be a safeguard against "tyrannical government?" Well, maybe... It might depend on which Founding Father you ask, though. One of the great untruths of the conservative American founding myth is that "the Founding Fathers" were a group of unimpeachable Holy Men who, by virtue of their divine inspiration, never disagreed with one another on any subject worth discussing. What is certain is that the guy who probably wrote the final version of it talks a lot more against foreign invasion as a pretext for the 2nd Amendment than he does any domestic tyranny. That's certainly a somewhat obsolete concern in our era of nuclear submarines and early warning systems, but the efficacy of any argument of that sort is necessarily limited by which sides of the debate want to hear it.
 * The argument over what "arms," "militia," and "people" mean is essentially a conflict between originalism (with a healthy dose of strict constructionism) and the Living Constitution idea. As an interesting aside, Antonin Scalia has no problem referring to the former position, which he supports, as idealizing a Dead Constitution. From what I've read, I do think the historical way of reading the 2nd Amendment is as a guarantee of private individual gun ownership. That is completely separate from the issue of whether that guarantee is any longer necessary or productive (which I don't think). Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 18:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that if you take the view that the literal words in the constitution are to be upheld, then either you have to read it as requiring that people be allowed to openly own nuclear weapons (Imagine a US-based nut-job, openly constructing a FOAB grade weapon in full knowledge of the authorities) - or you have to accept that government can act to limit those weapons. Since the words don't say anything about guns - you have to concede that if the government can ban people from owning nuclear weapons - then they can also ban them from owning anything more dangerous than a club or a 3" knife.  If you argue that the founding fathers had in mind a particular weapon as an "arm" - then fixed-sight, single-shot, muzzle-loading smoothbores (and no smokeless powder) should be the legal standard because that's what they knew.  If you regard the constitution as a "living document" because the founding fathers couldn't possibly understand how the world might develop - then we should be able to adjust the definition of "arms" to suit the modern world - which should result in something a lot more sane and adaptable than "any gun"...or whatever the current standard is.
 * The idea that the constitution specifically permits things precisely conceived of as modern firearms is simply indefensible - it says nothing of the sort. SteveBaker (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. I didn't mean to suggest that all guns were encompassed by the 2nd Amendment, just that, whatever class of objects Madison and the framers had in mind, some firearms were certainly in the mix. The amendment is permeated with ambiguity in practically every word, and imposing one construction or another doesn't resolve the ambiguity inherent in the text. As long as that ambiguity stands, there's going to be serious disagreement on how to interpret the constitution. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 20:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not making this up (famous last words)
I had read somewhere that the world's first modern environmental movement was in Japan, during the Meiji period, regarding preservation of the wilderness of Hokkaido, however I can find no reference for this, has anyone else heard this?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Information about early conservation in Japan at Local Environmental Movements - A Comparative History of US and Japanese Invironmental Movements. Alansplodge (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I doubt if the Meiji period was the first instance of environmentalism. Establishment of large parks, like Central Park, may also qualify, as might implementation of clean water and sewage systems, such as the Roman aqueducts.  For that matter, when the first cave men decided not to just poop wherever they happened to be and set aside a place for that, this would qualify, too.  StuRat (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This was probably pre-human, but post arboreal.


 * But early environmental movements might be the creation of the New Forest in 1079, or even the estate formations of the previous millenia. Exactly what constitutes a "modern environmental movement" is something that would need to be defined before one could consider "first". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC).


 * I believe that if you consider the legal preservation of the environmental system of a particular area as an end in itself, rather than for hunting, water catchment, grazing or other human activity, then the first example I can find is Yosemite National Park in 1864. The New Forest was created by a a brutal military tyrant expelling thousands of people from productive farmland so that he could chase deer about, which didn't really have the same lofty ideals. Alansplodge (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * OP specifically asked about the first instance of modern environmentalism, not the first instance. Come on, peeps. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Define modern and environmentalism. Every example thus given has been objected solely by the "no true Scotsman" defense.  We have a case of shifting goalposts, which should be said were very ill-defined to start with.  -- Jayron  32  02:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, assuming that the premise of the question is correct, the Meiji period started in 1868, so on that basis, the creation of the first national park in USA was earlier. Alansplodge (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Saved pages
Where are my saved pages gone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimi76 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Saved pages from what source using what tool? SteveBaker (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Renovation of the White House under Obama
I hardly find any updates update that project? What is the current status of the renovation? Is it on hold due to the GOP's objections or are the shovels still active? 112.198.79.49 (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This report (from February 2013) says that a major two-year renovation programme is underway. --Viennese Waltz 14:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)