Talk:Gun laws in the United States by state: Difference between revisions

Brady scorecard and other maps, continued

In the Proposed removal of all maps subsection, Movementarian said that there is no consensus to remove the maps from the page, however it's equally true that there is no consensus for retaining the maps. In the straw poll in that subsection, 4 editors supported removal of the maps, 4 were opposed, and one said that removal is "probably best". The maps have been added and then removed several times in the last few months. They're there now because it happens that the last edit was to add them again, and also, for the last couple of weeks, to allow other editors to see and comment on them as part of the Request for Comment. It seems to me that we're unable to reach a general agreement on the maps. It is therefore best that the maps not be added, i.e. that they be removed, because a significant number of editors, about half, feel quite strongly that they violate NPOV, and that they are also factually misleading, while the reasons for adding the maps are much less compelling. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is all of this drama because of the Brady map? Hell, the Brady map makes sense. Unless we can come up with a better system for categorizing the overall level of firearm freedom in a state, let it stay up. For a quick glance, it's completely adequate. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

——————

There was no consensus for removal, and the claim that they violate WP:NPOV is not supported by the language of that policy. I am restoring the maps. — JPMcGrath (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for adding the maps, and about half of the editors who have commented agree, after very extensive discussion of the subject, that they do in fact violate NPOV. Therefore the maps should not be added to the article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely no way in hell the maps describing concealed carry, open carry, and firearms transport laws violate NPOV. They're simply stating the law as it stands. The only map with NPOV issues is the Brady Campaign map, and it would be best to balance that out with a map of overall restrictiveness from another source, rather than tossing the baby out with the bathwater. The maps are a concise, visual representation of the laws across the United States - which is what the article is about, right? Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this article gives undue coverage to the laws of interested to the editors in charge here, which is mostly of laws related to the carry of handguns. Missing is weight of coverage of laws of interest to the opposite POV, such as illegal gun trafficking laws, child safety laws, tracing of criminal use of guns, reporting requirements for stolen guns, criminal gun trace data tracking and guns in the workplace/schools. This is evidence systemic editor bias which violates WP:NPOV policy. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mudwater: The maps certainly do not violate WP:NPOV, but your removal of the maps does. The policy is absolutely clear: It "requires that all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly". It further says "material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is 'POV'".

If you remove the maps based on a claim that it violates NPOV, you must show how it does. That should be based on what NPOV actually says, not what you imagine it says or what you want it to say.

— JPMcGrath (talk) 07:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After a very extensive discussion lasting several months, quite a few editors are in agreement that the Brady Campaign state scorecard map violates the NPOV policy. The reasons have been explained at length and repeatedly on this talk page. As most of these editors have also stated, the best way to keep this article neutral is to factually describe the actual gun laws of each state, without adding any biased opinions that promote a particular political agenda. Let the arguments about whether the laws are good or bad be included in other articles, not this one. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this isn't about good versus bad. Neither is it about bias. The issue is whether all significant points of view seen in reliable sourcing are represented proportionately in the article. Mudwater here is misusing WP:NPOV policy, misinterpreting it to mean that a POV that he doesn't agree with needs to be removed. The fact now is that Mudwater has removed all mention and all references to the major significant voice of the opposite POV. Yes, zero mention of Brady Campaign in an article about USA gun law! Wow, is that neutral balance? Meanwhile, the article contains WP:UNDUE attention to the pro-carry of handguns viewpoint. (And, the most used source is owned by a company that sells handgun holsters needed to carry these handguns raising WP:COI questions.) This is a NPOV mess which needs fixing if we are to follow policy. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, this isn't about "Point of View" at all! This is an article that is supposed to be a listing of gun laws. Feel free to add any (as per the discussion below), that you feel ar not represented here - I'll agree that this focuses on carry laws and leaves others out - but if you want to include "point of view" in an article, bring it over to Gun politics, because it does not belong here. Rapier (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mudwater, several people have asserted that it violates NPOV, but nobody has pointed to any part of NPOV that says it does. At the same time, I have pointed out language in NPOV that says it should not be removed, and again, nobody has offered any rationale for removing the maps in violation of NPOV. — JPMcGrath (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, several us us have pointed to WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP reasons for these not to be here. Please stop edit-warring. There is established precedent for not including article information that is not agreed upon by consensus, so I will ask you to undo your edit and remove this material. Rapier (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please quote or point to the relevant parts from WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP that you think supports this? — JPMcGrath (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't see why we need the maps here, regardless of whether they comply with wikipedia policy. Every anti-gun and pro-gun web site has maps out the wazoo already.
2. The first issue that I see with the Brady map is the use of the word "restrictive." The person who created that graphic, and it wasn't the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, added that word. WP:NOR
3. The NRA-ILA map for Concealed Carry was also modified from its original version to read "may issue; license often granted" and "may issue; license often not granted" and "no issue" in place of the original "rights restricted" and "right infringed." WP:NOR
4. The cited document "2009 Brady Campaign Scorecard" does not contain any references to what the law actually is. It is simply their statement, to be taken on faith, that a State has or does not have a law that complies with the policy and agenda of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
   1. It qualifies as a WP:POORSRC in that the BCPGV does not appear to have a reputation for accuracy, does not provide any means for verification of the data, and the Scorecard consists of views that might be extremist, data that is certainly promotional, and also relies heavily on personal opinion.
      1. The Brady Campaign Scorecard expresses an opinion of what the laws should be and assigns arbitrary point values to each type of law.
      2. The use of this data within this article attempts to describe whether the laws of a particular state are more or less restrictive of keeping and bearing firearms. That amounts to synthesis of published material WP:SYN because the cited source does not use those terms. In fact, the map on the bradycampaign.org site uses the words "strongest" and "weakest."
5. The NRA-ILA and OpenCarry.org resources appear to be better at citing to actual and reputable legal sources, however their produced data are not different from the BCPGV in that they are also potentially extremist views, contain promotional data, and also rely heavily on personal opinion. They, too, are a WP:POORSRC.
   1. For example, the OpenCarry.org map assigns a value of "Gold Star" to states that comply with their policy and agenda regarding the open carrying of handguns.
6. There may be other resources from these organizations usable in this article, but the only valid use of the following sources are for WP:SELFPUB in articles such as Gun politics in the United States.
   1. Brady Scorecard Map from bradycampaign.org (due to lack of cite to authority, accuracy, opinion-based, and promotion of an agenda)
   2. Gun Registration Laws from opencarry.org (due to describing registration of "so-called" assault weapons; promotion of an agenda)
   3. Concealed Carry Map from NRA-ILA (due to the actual source using the terms "Rights Restricted" and "Right Infringed"; promotion of an agenda; opinion-based)
   4. Open Carry Gun Laws from opencarry.org (due to assignment of "Gold Star" label; opinion-based; promotion of an agenda)

The best sources for this article will be .gov resources including published statutes and common law accompanied by supporting case law, Judges' opinions, Attorneys' General opinions, and Law-Enforcement Agency memorandums; those accompaniments being your only truly reputable secondary sources on law. If the bradycampaign.org or opencarry.org happen to host a copy of an official document from one of the aforementioned secondary sources, then I don't see a problem with using such a link for your reference. Luftegrof (talk) 04:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't see why we need the maps here". Because they're a clear and concise visual reference.

" The NRA-ILA map for Concealed Carry was also modified from its original version to read "may issue; license often granted" and "may issue; license often not granted" and "no issue" in place of the original "rights restricted" and "right infringed."" Well do you want a neutral map or not? "Right restricted" is a pretty POV way to put it. Faceless Enemy (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, maps are a clear and concise visual reference. Fine, have maps. That doesn't mean one should use non-neutral maps that were generated by a non-neutral source and change the legends so that the maps appear to be neutral. What you put in the article must reflect what is in the reference material. Brady's scores and maps depict which states' laws are "strongest" and "weakest" based on their arbitrary scale. NRA-ILA's map is based on opinions that certain carry laws are reasonable or unreasonable, restrictive or less-restrictive. The NRA-ILA referenced article is "Right-to-Carry 2010" and the map title is "Right to Carry Laws;" not "Concealed Carry Laws." If you change the legend or title in any way, you are changing the meaning of the map. If the unabridged sources are irrelevant or do not meet the WP, they shouldn't be used. Luftegrof (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BINGO! Maps produced by advocacy groups blatantly violate WP:SOAP, and could even be considered advertising for those organizations. Maps produced by users violate WP:OR, and the "benefit" of having a summary map (what's so horrible about going to the state you want to know about and reading the bloody information?) it can be argued is far outweighed by the potential POV pushing of whatever group produces the summary. As has been stated by me several times in this argument: raw data is neutral, and themoment someone takes that data and starts to analyze or summarize they are automatically going to put their own point-of-view on that information. This is not and article about the politics of gun laws (there is another article for that already, go there and post your NRA and Brady maps), this is an article about the laws themselves. Lazyness is not an excuse to insert information that is not appropriate to the article. Rapier (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luftegrof: I really have no idea why you replied to my message. It contained a single question, asking Sean to quote the relevant parts of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP that suggested that the map should not be included. Your reply did not address this, so I wonder what you think you were answering. Nonetheless, I will address the points that you did make:

1: What the article needs is summary. It should provide the reader with information about the kinds of state gun laws that exist, and how they vary among the states. Right now, it just provides the details, requiring the reader to sift through 50 different sections and summarize the material himself. The maps provide some of that, although more is certainly needed.

2: This is a rather absurd claim. The map is based on information published material from a reliable, third party, secondary source. There is nothing in WP:NOR that says we must use the exact same wording that the source does. Althouh the Brady Campaign used the word "strong" rather than "restrictive", it accurately reflects the information they present, and is less likely to be interpreted as an endorsement of their position of whether restrictive is good or bad. Of course, if you believe that the word "strong" would be more accurate, then I would have no problem using that word.

3: This is the exact same issue as #2. As with the Brady map, the wording was chosen to accurately reflect the information about what the concealed carry laws are, but avoiding including their position on what the laws should be. The former is appropriate for this article, while the latter is not. It is appropriate to include only the relevant information in the article.

4: Do you think there is some Wikipedia policy that requires that a source provide every bit of information that went into their thinking? If there were, it would disqualify the majority of the sources cited on Wikipedia.

4.1: You claim that the Brady Campaign "does not appear to have a reputation for accuracy", but what do you base that on? Do you have some source, aside from opposing advocacy groups, that supports this, or is this just your personal opinion?

4.1.1: The Scorecard primarily expresses what the laws are, and also includes their opinion about what the laws should be. The former was included in the map, while the latter was omitted, which is appropriate for this article.

4.1.2: You seem to be claiming that including some of the information, the relevant part, without including irrelevant parts constitutes synthesis. WP:SYN talks about combining information from multiple sources in order to imply a conclusion, not about selecting information from one source. I cannot imagine how you think this applies, and you have not quoted the part of the policy that you think does apply. Would you please do so?

5. You claim that the NRA/ILA and OpenCarry.org are poor sources, yet they are both referenced multiple times in this article - the former 24 times and the latter 9 times. Isn't this a little ridiculous?

5.1: Same issue as #2 and #3.

6: I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to WP:SELFPUB. Obviously, the Brady Campaign, the NRA-ILA, and OpenCarry are published experts in the field of gun laws. This makes no sense at all. If you think it does, please explain.

If you really believe that WP:NOR, WP:POORSRC, WP:SYN, and WP:SELFPUB apply here, would you please quote the part of those policies that you believe do apply?

— JPMcGrath (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR -- What's the source for "license often not granted" and "license often granted?" The cited NRA-ILA article does not provide any information as to the frequency of issue (number issued vs. number of applications made). The original map said "discretionary/reasonable issue" for what I think was called "license often granted" on the map previously displayed here. -- "The term 'original research' refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources."

WP:SYN, WP:NOR -- How do you paraphrase a one-word thought with another one-word thought when each word has a different meaning? Strong != Restrictive. They're not even close to being synonyms. The BCPGV did not say any particular state's laws are "restrictive." So what's the source? The NRA-ILA map does use the word "restricted." That's quite a coincidence. In referring to BCPGV's "strong" states as "restrictive", the meaning of the BCPGV map was changed to something that neither the NRA-ILA nor the BCPGV sources actually mentioned. The states to which the NRA-ILA attributed the word "restricted" are not all the same states that the BCPGV called "strong." Now, if it's true that "restrictive" wasn't, even if subconsciously, taken from the NRA-ILA publication, then I'll retract my WP:SYN argument and simply stick with WP:NOR. The short of it is that the BCPGV map previously displayed in this wikipedia article had a different meaning than the original source. -- "The best practice is to write articles by researching the most reliable sources on the topic and summarizing what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly" and "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context." and "[d]o not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

WP:POORSRC First of all, I want to clarify that I'm not trying to say that everything published by the BCPGV, the NRA-ILA, and OCDO are poor sources; just that some of the information, particularly these maps, are poor sources. The OCDO maps, for instance, were created by either or both John Pierce and Mike Stollenwerk on their own. Neither even had a law degree when most of those maps were produced, though they have been attending law school. OCDO does not have a "professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments." They may have consulted with experts when compiling their research, but nothing to that effect is noted. In fact, if you click through the map into the state pages, they say right at the top of each one "any and all information you glean from this site should be independently verified!" The NRA-ILA and BCPGV are basically equal, but on extreme opposite sides of the issues. By equal, I mean they do have a "professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments." However, they both have reputations for slanting their representation of facts and evidence to promote their agenda. I claim that the NRA-ILA map in question has errors as well, mainly because they omitted that the map represents concealed carry; there are several states that have not required a permit to carry for a very long time, but are represented on the map as "shall-issue."

BCPGV was formerly HCI:

In 1999, HCI claimed that between 1992-1997 violent crime declined less in RTC states than in other states.17 (HCI previously claimed RTC caused crime to rise.) HCI erred in categorizing 31 states as having RTC during the period, since only 17 of the 31 had RTC in 1992. HCI calculated crime trends from 1992 to under-represent the impact of RTC laws; by 1992 many states had RTC for many years and had already experienced decreases in crime. HCI misclassified Alabama and Connecticut as “restrictive,” and credited restrictive laws for crime decreasing in some states, though states that had restrictive carry laws had had them for many years, and crime did not begin declining in those states until the 1990s, for reasons unrelated to guns.^[1]

The BCPGV map, as I said earlier, is based on an arbitrary point system. The entire basis of the BCPGV map of scores is the compliance of a State's laws with the BCPGV agenda. Because of those reasons, it is a self-published source.

Quotes from WP:SOURCES, WP:POORSRC -- "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "[i]n general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments" and "[s]elf-published expert sources are regarded as reliable in limited circumstances" and "[a]ll self-published sources, whether experts or not, are considered reliable as sources on themselves, especially in articles about themselves, subject to certain criteria, though no article should be based primarily on such sources" and "[questionable] sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves;"

Luftegrof (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that Mudwater made those changes based on the content of the web site. If he did so based on his own beliefs about the state laws, that would be original research and the original wording, or something equivalent, should be restored.

I am really quite stunned at your suggestion that the word "restrictive" in the Brady map is somehow derived from the NRA/ILA. The Brady map was added on March 3rd, and the NRA/ILA map was added over 3 months later, at the suggestion of Mudwater. Your conjecture that one came from the other does not make sense.

For future reference, you have misread WP:SYN. Even if I had taken the wording from an NRA/ILA map and applied it to the Brady map (which I did not), that would not apply. Synthesis is when one takes statements from separate sources and juxtaposes them, so as to imply a conclusion that neither source implied. That would not apply, even in your imagined scenario.

As you point out, WP:NOR suggests expressing the views of reliable sources "in your own words". But then you attempt to suggest that "own words" means the source's words with simple synonym substitution, which is not what it says. When the Brady Campaign talks about strong gun laws, they mean laws that restrict how guns are transported, exchanged, and used, so I chose the word "restrictive". If you believe that does not accurately reflect what they mean by "strong", you could make an argument for different wording, even the word "strong". But it would not justify removing the material entirely.

As for WP:POORSRC, you appear to have misunderstood what it says as well. When it talks about "questionable sources", it is indeed talking about sources, not material published by the sources. It does not make sense to argue that it is a poor source in one situation and the claim that it is not when you like what the source says. You can't have it both ways.

While I do not know much about OpenCarry.org, I wonder on what basis you say that it does not have a "professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments".

The source you cite as a basis for criticism of the Brady Campaign is a rival advocacy group, which is not at all surprising. These groups criticize each other - that is their nature. But what is really hard to understand is why you are citing a source that you say is a "poor source". If the NRA is a poor source, how can you use that as a basis for your criticism of the Brady Campaign? It does not make sense.

Of course, what is really confusing is that the sources you are impuning are heavily cited in this article. If they are not reliable, then all material sourced to them should be removed from this article. I think these make up a significant part of the secondary sources cited, which would leave the article almost entirely original research. That is a significant issue with this article now, and it would be made even worse. Is that what you are suggesting?

— JPMcGrath (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest adding the NRA/ILA map of concealed carry laws. As for my change to the legend of the map, here, that was an attempt to make the map less POV, by changing the wording to be more neutral and less pro-gun-rights. But it's a moot point now. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 08:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did suggest adding a map of concealed carry laws - see here. The sourcing for your changes to the map legend is not moot. Did you base that on the NRA/ILA site, or was it based on your own knowlege/beliefs? — JPMcGrath (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement is incorrect. I never suggested adding the concealed carry map, nor did I suggest adding any maps. In my comment that you've linked to, I was reacting to you having re-added the Brady map, this time along with the concealed carry map and several other maps. As that comment shows, initially I was thinking that the non-Brady maps "merely document specific laws of each state, so those are okay." However my position subsequently evolved, and I now think that the additional maps should also be left out of the article. As to my change of the wording of the legend of the map, as I said, that was an attempt to make the wording more neutral, and less biased in favor of the NRA's political position, while still expressing the same facts, i.e. whether a state is shall-issue, may-issue, etc. When I said that it's a moot point, I was referring to the fact that the concealed carry map is no longer included in the article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible! You clearly suggested adding a concealed carry map. Here is what you said:

There should also be some discussion about which of these law-specific maps to add or not to add to the article. For example, there probably should be a map for concealed carry (shall issue, may issue, no issue, no license required).

How can you possibly claim now that you did not? — JPMcGrath (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "The Brady map was added on March 3rd, and the NRA/ILA map was added over 3 months later, at the suggestion of Mudwater." That is not true. A "suggestion" is when someone proposes or recommends doing something that has not happened yet. For someone to "suggest" adding the map, (1) the map would have to not already be there, and (2) they would have to say something along the lines of, "Hey, I've got a good idea for improving the article. Let's add a concealed carry map." I didn't do that. In the post you're referring to, I was reacting after the fact to your having added the map, along with several other maps. At that time, I was thinking that it might be okay to add the maps other than the Brady Campaign state scorecard map, and that the concealed carry map in particular might be acceptable. But I now think it would be better not to add any maps at all. In conclusion, I never suggested adding any maps to the article, and your statement that the NRA/ILA map was added at my suggestion is erroneous. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, the point of this debate is settled. If there is a need to argue who said what and when, please do so privately. Rapier (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What gives you the idea that the point is settled? — JPMcGrath (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what you are saying is that you said that the article should have a concealed carry map, but you did not say that it should be added. How did you expect that a map would get into the article without someone adding it? In any case, you suggested that the article should have a concealed carry map, and in response to your suggestion, I added it, which is what I said. My original statement was true. — JPMcGrath (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, you're right, I did suggest adding the concealed carry map. Here is the sequence of events: (1) You added the Brady Campaign state scorecard map, here. (2) I removed it, here. (3) In a series of edits over the following three months, the state scorecard map was re-added and then removed from the article multiple times by several different editors. (4) You re-added the state scorecard map, and also added four maps referenced to OpenCarry.org, here. (5) I said that "there probably should be a map for concealed carry...", here. (6) You added the NRA/ILA concealed carry map, here. (7) After some additional discussion, I changed my mind, and I now think that it's better not to add any maps. I apologize for my confusion about the history of the article and the associated discussion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your forthright reply; it is much appreciated. In that spirit, I'd like you to answer another question: You have said that you believe the maps violate WP:NPOV, but you appear not to base that on the text of the policy. If that is the case, then how did you conclude that this is so? Was it based on the title of the policy? Or perhaps what you think is good for Wikipedia? Or was it something else? — JPMcGrath (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking me why I think the maps violate the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. But that's exactly what I, and other editors, have been explaining on this talk page, for more than six months now. We've talked in particular about how the Brady Campaign State Scorecard map violates NPOV, and how it also does not accurately assess the restrictiveness of different states' gun laws. We've covered this subject in great length, and in great detail, and in multiple talk page sections. Roughly half of the editors who have participated in the discussion agree that the Brady map does violate NPOV. I understand that you think otherwise. Fine, that's your opinion. But multiple editors have really covered this subject very thoroughly, and I don't see the point in rehashing what's already been stated many times and in many different ways. For your convenience and that of other editors, here are current links to some but not all of the talk page sections where this subject has been discussed:

• Archived discussions -- do not update:
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 1#2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#User:Niteshift36 disruption at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 1#Brady and other maps
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 2#RfC: Should the Brady map be removed or retained?
• Discussions currently on this page:
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Proposed removal of all maps
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Brady scorecard and other maps, continued (i.e. this section)

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 16:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not asking you why you believe that it violates WP:NPOV. I am asking you how you go about determining whether something in an article violates WP:NPOV. What I do is to examine the text of the policy and see if any of its strictures are violated. For example, when I see an article that has a lot of material about a fringe point of view, I look at WP:NPOV and see that it says an article "must not give undue weight to a minor point of view", so I know it violates that policy. I presume that you do not just make it up as you go along, so you must have a method by which you make that determination. Would you please explain that method? — JPMcGrath (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your question has the effect of continuing the discussion about why the Brady Campaign state scorecard map violates the NPOV policy. I really think we've reached the point of diminishing returns on that. Please refer to my previous post for links to the relevant talk page sections. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say you have concluded that the maps violate WP:NPOV and are asking that I and others accept your conclusion. Given that, it seems obvious that you should explain how you reached your conclusion. I have assumed good faith and presume that you have a rational basis for your conclusion, but your reluctance to explain this suggests that you do not. — JPMcGrath (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About half of the editors who have participated in this discussion over the last six months, including myself, have concluded that the Brady map violates the NPOV policy. We have explained how we reached our conclusion -- and have explained it over and over, in great detail and at great length, and while addressing various objections. You or any editor can see this in the talk page sections for which I've provided links. So, the discussion seems to have come to a logical stopping point. Thanks for your participation. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen one message that explains how you reached that conclusion. Would you please point me to it? — JPMcGrath (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that a significant number of editors agree, after much discussion, that the Brady Campaign state scorecard map violates the Neutral Point of View principal, and so should not be added to the article. Please refer to the following sections or subsections of this talk page:

• #2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard
• #Brady and other maps
• #RfC: Should the Brady map be removed or retained?
• #Proposed removal of all maps
• #Brady scorecard and other maps, continued (i.e. this subsection)

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mudwater is correct. After literally months of debate, two requests for comment, and the beginnings of a formal mediation, it was agreed upon by consensus that summary maps from any source have no place in an article listing laws of various states as they represent too high a potential for point of view, original research, soapboxing, and advertising issues. Their potential benefit is negligable at best, and the cons far outweigh any gain. Rapier (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brady scorecard, maps: saga continues

JPMcGrath, Please stop and do as you have been very reasonably asked by SeanNovack here. Please actually address the concerns in talk with new arguments before doing this. Your revisions(here) are neither new, nor are they based on arguments of yours which have been "ignored", as you believe. SeanNovack advised in his summary that Your arguments were rebutted, not ignored. 3RR applies.

He is correct. Your arguments were exhaustively discussed and rebutted for six months, after which time there was not a consensus of the group to go ahead with your intended additions. You know this because you participated in the months-long discussion. Although you waited two months before returning to attempt the same revisions again, the history is not changed. It is inappropriate and gives one the impression that you are gambling that other editors will not notice, and that you intend to bypass the months of good faith debate on the subject because it did not conclude favoring your position. I hope that is not what is happening.Digiphi (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is hardly reasonable. Mudwater removed the maps after failing to reach consensus for removal, then repeatedly removed them when restored. I have been willing to let the removal stand while there was any chance of productive discussion. That does not appear to be happening.

There has been no rebuttal; rather obfuscation, obstruction, and dissembling. He has not supported his claims of an WP:NPOV and he has been unwilling to answer simple questions about how he came to that conclusion.

Would you like to take a stab at it? How can the maps violate WP:NPOV when there is no language in the text of the policy that it violates, and when that text explicitly says that material such as this should not be removed for being POV?

— JPMcGrath (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an updated list of links to the relevant talk page sections. I used the word count tool in MS Word on these nine talk page sections, and they contain more than 30,000 words of discussion!

• Archived discussions -- do not update:
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 1#2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard
  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#User:Niteshift36 disruption at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/45#Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 1#Brady and other maps
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 2#RfC: Should the Brady map be removed or retained?
• Discussions currently on this talk page:
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Proposed removal of all maps
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Brady scorecard and other maps, continued
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Brady scorecard, maps: saga continues (i.e. this section)

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reflecting on SB's comments above re systemic editor bias. In this area I believe he is correct. This article looks for the most part to be "concealed carry laws in the US by state" rather than a more general "gun laws" article. With that in mind I wonder if we can build consensus to alter the intro somewhat to include an explanation of what kinds of laws there are related to firearms, and what kinds of differences exist between the states. I'd like to hear if other editors agree. To that end, I'm starting a list - feel free to add/edit:

• Concealed Carry
• Waiting Period
• Storage (locks, disassembly, etc.)
• Child-safety (as exists other than storage above)
• purchase limits
• transfer / registration rules
• education/testing requirements (many states require training and/or tests for handgun license, hunting license, etc)
• tracing laws (SB suggested - perhaps he can elucidate)

If we do this, we probably will want to break-up the article as suggested. In that case having an infobox for quick assessment of the state of each state might be nice. Looking for feedback. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a great idea to expand the article to include some/all of the items in your list, but I think we should only add them to intro after we've fleshed them out in the body of the article. But we might want to condense or combine a couple of the items (e.g. Storage and Child-safety) since some of them will only apply to a few states (ballistic fingerprinting and microstamping would also fit into that category).

However, I think it is imperative that the article focuses on stating the laws and not go into discussing whether the laws are good/bad, strict/lax, etc. And I know that someone is going to come back with "...but we should present all significant POVs as found in reliable sources..." But as soon as we start adding that kind of stuff, we'll end up duplicating the back and forth arguments found in articles like Gun politics in the United States, Political arguments of gun politics in the United States, Gun violence in the United States, etc.

I also think it would be nice to have a single table listing all of the states and summarizing the status of at least some of the items in your list. But I'm not sure how feasible that would be, and incredibly large tables are pretty unwieldy to glean information from, as well. --Hamitr (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem adding to the variety of laws that are tracked. I'm not against any of the laws you mentioned, but for the record it might be difficult to track things like "Storage: Locks, disassembly, etc" when Heller v DC stated that it was unconstitutional to require that people use gun locks on their handguns because it violated the principle of self-defense. That is the kind of issue that comes up when going through a list of laws - people start thinking about what they believe should be there, rather than what is actually there. It's certainly worthwhile doing the research to put such a list together, but in the end it would probably be better of there were wikilinks to individual articles for the gun laws of each state. My 2 1/2 cents. Rapier (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the categories I've seen suggested here could be consolidated within more general categories. I'm partial to the way I organized the Virginia section last year. Every state will be slightly different, but the following categories cover just about every type of firearm law. Luftegrof (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Constitution
  • Is there a provision in the Constitution regarding firearms or arms in general?
• Preemption/Local Regulation
  • May localities regulate firearms; and if so, what may they regulate?
• Legality of Certain Firearms
  • What firearms (or accessories) are legal/illegal?
  • Who, if anyone, may manufacture firearms?
  • What condition do firearms have to be stored or used in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luftegrof (talk • contribs) 02:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Prohibited Places
  • Where may you not have a gun?
• Prohibited Persons
  • Who may not have a gun?
• Purchasing of Firearms
  • Who may purchase firearms?
  • Who may sell firearms?
  • Are there any dealer regulations?
  • Are there restrictions on the purchase of firearms or accessories?
  • Are there qualifications or requirements prior to the purchase of firearms or accessories?
• Carry
  • Open Carry
    • How is it defined in the state?
    • Is it legal? Does it require a permit?
    • What supporting laws, legal opinions, or court rulings affirm that open carry is legal or illegal?
  • Concealed Carry
    • How is it defined in the state?
    • Is it legal? Does it require a permit?
    • What supporting laws, legal opinions, or court rulings affirm that concealed carry is legal or illegal?
  • Carry Permits (if they exist)
    • Who may get a permit?
    • How does one get a permit?
    • What are the qualifications?
    • Are there Permit Exemptions?
      • Do some laws not apply to people who have a permit?
    • Are there Permit Restrictions?
      • Are there extra requirements or rules of conduct specifically for those who are carrying with a permit?

• Here's how your list would fit under my proposed organization:
  • Concealed carry fits better under general "carry," as there are two (or more) types of carry.
  • Waiting periods fit under "Purchasing of Firearms."
  • Storage might fit under "Legality of Certain Firearms" in that a firearm without a lock may be illegal, or an assembled firearm may be illegal.
  • Child-safety is something that falls under more than one category. In the categories I listed, it falls under "Prohibited Persons" as well as "Legality of Certain Firearms."
  • Purchase limits, transfer, and registration are all under "Purchasing of Firearms."
  • Registration is also under "Legality of Certain Firearms"
  • Testing/education requirements under either or both the "Purchasing of Firearms" and "Carry" sections, if applicable.
  • Tracing laws, such as ballistic fingerprinting, serial number registration would fall under either "Legality of Certain Firearms," "Purchasing of Firearms" or both.
  • Any of the above may also fall under "Local Regulation" Luftegrof (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Another peeve that I have, which someone had hinted earlier on this page and I hope we can address, are the sources/references not being straight from a State's on-line code library; or from some other .gov site. If this page is supposed to be State gun laws, then ALL of the sources should be from .gov sites; except in cases where there absolutely is not a .gov statute code source. I haven't found a state yet that doesn't have its statutory laws on-line. Most have their administrative laws on-line, too. Luftegrof (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds excellent. Does anyone here know how to make an infobox? Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An infobox may be a good addition to each state sections, but it does not excuse the poor organization of the main content, nor does it replace the need for a more in-depth description of the laws. Here's a sample infobox I just created for Virginia, what do you think? When implemented, the code sections listed would be links as well... I didn't do that here in order to save time. Luftegrof (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removed my state gun laws infobox from this page; I'm working on it elsewhere.Luftegrof (talk) 06:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does it make sense to try to create an infobox for gun laws? What sort of things should be included? I can think of: concealed carry, open carry, storage, registration, NFA regulations, ballistic fingerprinting/microstamping/whatever, and "assault weapon" bans (or maybe just bans on standard-capacity magazines). Any other ideas? Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea a lot! Let's develop this a little so we can be sure to include the primary laws that people are concerned about (personally,, I like what is there now, and we don't want to make it too big, but others may have more/better ideas)Rapier (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually pretty awesome, but it might be better to have the legal code things as plain old references, rather than a long, drawn-out thing. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this moment, I'd prefer to use the reference tags for the main body of text and use direct links for the infobox. I'll think about it for a bit... By the way, I went ahead and added an infobox to the Virginia section. I'll probably change it a lot over the next few days or weeks, but it's there for now. Luftegrof (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There appeared to be a consensus on shortening the length of the article, but not a consensus on splitting the article up; Virginia was one of the longest and was getting unmanageable and difficult to read in its present format. The infobox was a good idea, but after using it and trying to adequately summarize the gun laws within it, it became clear that it was inadequate. There's just not enough room in an infobox. I ported everything into an embedded list, like what was done for some other states. I think it's much cleaner, easier to read, and will be much easier to keep up-to-date than the outline format previously used. Having the embedded table deprecates the use of an infobox. Luftegrof (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any ideas or criticism for the Template:Infobox/State_Gun_Laws infobox on which I've been working? [Here] is a working implementation of that template.

Yes or No: In general, does it look like this framework would be a good start for organizing the State sections? I.e. does anyone want to help build on this?

Flag: Include the State flag in the infobox or not? I think it makes it rather easy to identify which State's laws are being shown. As it stands now, the flag is an optional field and, if not provided, nothing will be shown.

Hidden content: Do the hidden children work well? Does it hinder readers in any way? Mind you that there is still room for prose outside of the infobox.

Cramped: Is there too much information cramped into a little box?

Template: Does it make it easier for the editor to add content and to see what type of content is missing? E.g. default values such as "xxx unknown" so that if nobody has entered any content related to that (sub)category the reader is informed of that, rather than risking that a reader presumes a negative in the absence of information; and the editors can see that information may be missing.

Categories₁: Are the categories sufficient to cover all of the relevant laws? One type of law comes to mind that has been sparse or absent from the article is "discharge."

Categories₂: Should the content of each category be limited to the statute references and nothing more, while the prose contains all of the summary information? Or should the prose and infobox be more or less synchronized with the same set of data, presented in two different ways?

Beautification: There are obviously improvements to be made in the area of format, style, and placement within the article. For instance, apparently the infobox bleeds into the next section unless the next section contains a table/infobox/navbox of some sort. Maybe there's a way to fix this; or maybe it'll be moot if every state had an infobox. There are probably some wiki-fu masters out there that could work some magic on it in that and other ways. Luftegrof (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the last several weeks, editor Luftegrof has changed the Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania sections of the article, adding fairly large tables and removing the text of each section. The new tables certainly have their good points, and Luftegrof has done a nice job of linking the table entries to the actual state statutes. However, I think each state section should still have a few paragraphs of text, summarizing the highlights of the particular state's laws, whatever those may be. This will make it much easier for the casual reader to pick up on the main points of each state's laws. As an example, the Maryland section used to include this paragraph:

New handguns sold in Maryland must include a sealed envelope, provided by the manufacturer, containing a shell casing from a cartridge fired by that gun. When the gun is sold, the dealer must send the envelope with the shell casing, along with information identifying the purchaser, to the state police, for inclusion in their ballistics database, known as the Integrated Ballistics Identification System (IBIS).^[2][3]

Text paragraphs like this are great for summarizing the main points and bringing them to the attention of the average reader. It's more a matter of presentation, even if similar information can also be found in the table. In my opinion the article should keep some text for each state, whether the new tables are kept in their present form or not. What does everyone else think about this? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a topic such as gun laws, by state, is rather difficult for both editors and readers alike.

• There are tons of them.
• Many states have very similar laws.
  • For example, the machine gun laws are nearly identical for Maryland, Virginia, and other states as well.
• Many states have very different laws.
  • For example, in Virginia concealed means "hidden from common observation" but in Mississippi it means "[hidden] in whole or in part" and the implications of each definition are drastically different.
• All states' laws can fit into a relatively small number of categories.
  • The categories I've used in my tables aren't written in stone, but almost every gun law can fit into one of those categories.
• Most of us probably aren't lawyers; neither the readers nor the editors.
• Many times, readers will just have one or two particular questions they want to answer. They're not usually here to read from top down, A to Z.
• It is impossible to summarize most states' gun laws in a short paragraph.
  • Your example from Maryland is not a "main point." It's simply one of several dozen gun laws.
  • We have to be careful not to call one law a main point while not another one. In order to remain neutral, we must give all of the laws equal representation.
  • What could you say in a summary paragraph? "Maryland has gun laws regulating the purchase, sale, transfer, possession, minors, and blah..." I don't think that adds much, if any, value to the reader when the table says the same thing.
  • I do think, however, there ought to be a good summary at the very top of the article summarizing state gun laws in general, not really any particular state.
    • Something that explains the types of gun laws that will be included and why, the types laws that might not be included and why, and a notice to the reader that the article deals with State laws only and that some of these State laws may be moot, nullified, or illegal because of Federal statutory, administrative, or case law. I know some of that is already there, just stating here for completeness.

As such, this article requires an approach that may not be common or standard in other wikipedia articles.

Plain text paragraphs are more free-form and the order in which things are presented and the words used to present them are so different from state to state, and from editor to editor.

• Going from one state section to another, sometimes you have to sort-of change gears in your head to read the work of a different editor.
• People have a tendency to run on and on when a simple 10 word sentence would be easier to understand and more than sufficient, especially when the actual law text is linked-to for the reader.
• Plain text paragraphs could be the number one reason that this article is full of unvalidated/unreferenced information and non-neutral points of view.
  • Tables can still be abused as such, however it will be easier to spot them than when they're buried in the middle of or one of several paragraphs.

Tables will encourage editors to be more compliant with the style and structure of the rest of the article; and to be more succinct.

• Editing these state sections is so easy now.
  • Everything has a place.
  • There is perceived limited space, so I'm careful to stay clear, concise, and on-point.
  • The format of the table ensures that an editor includes all of the pertinent information as well. It's almost a sort of check-list for the editor (and the reader).

In summary: While the tables take up more space on the page for some states, the amount of text in them is considerably less than there would be in paragraphs that contain summaries of the same laws. Most of the short state sections are only short because they are missing a ton of information. In the long run, I think the use of tables, without plain text paragraphs for each state, will shorten the amount of text one must parse when they read this article, without decreasing the amount of knowledge they gain from it. In fact, it may increase. I am against having both paragraphs and tables because the duplication of data will only make it more difficult to keep up-to-date when laws change; and it's not only duplication of data, it's duplication of work. I think summary paragraph(s) should be at the top of the article in the introduction and be so generic that they do not need to be updated every time a state law is amended; the state sections should just be tables. Luftegrof (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just for the record, I have been careful to keep all of the referenced, verifiable, accurate information from the pre-existing paragraphs in the new tables. That includes the Maryland IBIS example above. Luftegrof (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really think the article will be much better with each section including several paragraphs of text. The text should summarize the most important points about each state's gun laws. This would include things like an overview of the state's concealed carry laws, whether or not they have preemption, and so on. It would also include things that are unusual or different about that state's laws, and the Maryland ballistics database is an example of that. Your idea that "We have to be careful not to call one law a main point while not another one. In order to remain neutral, we must give all of the laws equal representation," doesn't really hold up. In fact it's the editors' responsibility to emphasize the important points and omit the trivial, in this article as in any other Wikipedia article, and if there's disagreement about what's important and what isn't, that should be discussed on the talk page. I also disagree with your statement that "this article is full of unvalidated/unreferenced information and non-neutral points of view." In fact I think the opposite is true. I do agree however that the prose style of the different state section of the article is inconsistent. Also some of the sections are too long. The solution there is edit the text, not remove it. In summary, I'm not objecting to adding or expanding the tables in each section, but by removing the text paragraphs, you are making the article worse instead of better. When appropriate the text should be improved, made more consistent between sections, or edited down, but not removed. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this more and after reading your recent points, I think I can see the benefit of one or two paragraphs highlighting points of common interest and things that are unusual or rare for each state. Do you agree that such paragraphs should be concise? About the size of the Alabama or Arkansas sections, for instance? Regarding the unvalidated/unreferenced information and non-neutral points of view, perhaps "full" was too strong of a word. It's not that bad, but there's a lot of work to be done in many sections. Anyway, the next time I hit a state section with a table, I'll either keep what text is there; or in the case of a large section of text I'll edit it down to the key and novel points. FYI, WV is probably next; at this time I'm sticking with the states I'm the most familiar with. I'll start with VA to see if I can write a decent introduction paragraph. Luftegrof (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping an open mind about this. In my opinion, the text sections for Alabama and Arkansas are fine, but so are somewhat longer sections, for example, Nevada, New Jersey, and New Mexico. Sections that are probably too long right now include Arizona, Michigan, and New York. If someone significantly shortens a really long section, they should consider creating a separate article with the original text, as was done in the past with California. Also, I would encourage other editors to post their opinions on this subject. The more people who join the discussion, the better. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More input would be nice, but this talk page has been quiet for a while... I threw a few paragraphs together for Virginia, as discussed. Does anyone have any feedback on that? Luftegrof (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out about this collapsible feature. I applied it to the Maryland table. What do y'all think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luftegrof (talk • contribs) 17:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like it if each row of the table could be collapsed instead of the whole table. Maybe the only way to do that is to create a bunch of one-row tables? Luftegrof (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My initial reaction is that a "regular" collapsible table is a good way to go. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my page. I organized a state section using navboxes. I think it's even better than the tables we're using here now. Luftegrof (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and updated the Alabama, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia sections with navboxes at the risk of being berated here for doing something so drastic. If there are no objections, I'd like to continue with this format for the remaining states. I'd next do the longest sections that have been cited above by mudwater: Arizona, Michigan, and New York. The vast majority of the information currently contained in those sections would be retained in the new format, but other than the overview it will be in collapsed navboxes. Let me hear what y'all think. Luftegrof (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the thought and effort that you've put into this, and it's good that you're willing to try something different. But, my initial reaction is that the navboxes are not the way to go. The expandable sections may seem like a fun feature, but they make it a lot more work to read through each section. And we don't want to make the formatting of the article too different from that of other Wikipedia articles. Generally on Wikipedia, information is contained in text, and in tables. Navboxes are for navigating between groups of articles, not for linking to external references. So, I liked the previous idea a lot better, where each section had some text, followed by one table for that state that was collapsed by default.

It seems that you've also completely rewritten the text for each state section that you've revamped. In my opinion that's also too extreme. One of the big strengths of Wikipedia is that it's a collaborative effort. In the case of this article, the text, and the references, have been created by many different editors, who have gradually built upon each other's work over a long period of time. The current state of the article, as previously discussed, is very uneven, and the style and content of some of the sections are not consistent with the rest of the article, but there's a lot of good material here. In my view, if we're going to try to make the article better, we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater, metaphorically speaking. It's better to make more moderate changes to the text, and only delete existing material on a careful and limited basis.

Again, thanks for your efforts, but, to summarize, (1) I think regular tables, that can be expanded with one click, are a lot better than navboxes, and (2) I think we should move cautiously when updating the text of each section, and not be too quick to discard the existing material.

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One table vs. several tables: I was going for a multi-table approach; one table for each category of laws. The navbox is the tool I used for that, but maybe the standard table could do it. I guess the question is, should there be one large table or several smaller tables that could be expanded independently? Something about that one collapsed table doesn't look right to me. I'm going to refrain from putting it into more words while I ponder it some more.

Rewriting: You're right, after reviewing the sections, I found that I had unintentionally missed some things that were in the previous revisions. In my haste, it does appear that I have missed one thing from Alabama regarding the state's reciprocity law and where reciprocity information is maintained by the state, such as the AG. I don't think it's of any significance or value to the article to do any more for reciprocity than cite the law along with who maintains the reciprocity agreements and recognition lists. But you're right, slowly changing the text is important. My intentions in other sections, such as Maryland, were only to simplify long, drawn out explanations; not to discard material.

Discarding: Things we ought to discard, however, are lists of which states honor which states' permits, such as in the Ohio section; information that will frequently come out of date and is of little or no use, such as "permits are honored in 22 states;" information about bills that never became law, such as in the Wisconsin section; information about why a law was enacted or why a law should be repealed, such as in the Washington section; or anything that has more to do with the legislature itself than it does the bills that it passed successfully into law, such as in the Kansas section.

Current state of the article: I think this is one of the ugliest articles I have read on wikipedia. How did it ever get a "B-class" rating under any of those wikiprojects? Can you recommend a well written article in the Law WikiProject that covers laws of a particular sort from numerous places? I've found a few, but nothing of this magnitude. Is there anything in Wikipedia that remotely resembles what this article should look like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luftegrof (talk • contribs) 05:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This passage lacks context:

In December 2005, activists Gray Peterson and Jim March went to the state archives in Olympia to research the origins of the law. March, with his experience in researching gun control laws created out of racial discrimination and strife in California, surmised during a conversation with Peterson, that due to the year it was passed, it was likely due to "Panther paranoia."

The law, passed in 1969, was passed in response to incidents involving the Seattle Chapter of Black Panther Party at Rainier Beach High School and the Protest of the Mulford Act by the main organization in the California Assembly.

What law? —Tamfang (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Minnesota laws is outdated and/ or incorrect in a few ways.

One example:

MN has no "Concealed Carry law", we have a "Carry Law" we can carry openly or concealed, and we can carry any type of firearm we want (If I wanted to strap a Barrett .50 on my back I could legally do so with a carry permit).

The MN Dept. of Public Safety site used as a citation/ resource is outdated and very incorrect by its self. They believe it is "good as it is" and refuse to change it.

I am leaving this to let y'all know that after getting my sources together, and talking with Prof. Olsen (the man who wrote our law) I am going to be changing the MN section to CORRECTLY reflect MN law.AVHarris (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not ask Joe to make the changes himself? If he isn't willing or able, I'll give you a hand. I'm an instructor here in Minnesota, and a contributing editor for the Gun Owner's Civil Rights Alliance, which Joe Olson is the President of. Piece of advice, you may want to be a little less strident in your tone when editing. Doing so sounds more like arrogance than correction Rapier (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I write kind of straight forward, but I'm not intending to be condescending or arrogant. I will be more professional when editing the article. I am making a post on the Carry Forum to ask the assistance of Prof. Olson and the rest of the guys.-AVHarris (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like I was beaten to it by one of the other guys.-AVHarris (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. The back-and-forth for clarity continues.Digiphi (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Carry is allowed in restaurants that serve beer and/or wine however." Looked at the link and couldn't find anything there to support this. The linked page also provides a PDF with the actual law, but it only refers to it being illegal to carry in any establishment that serves alcohol. I couldn't find any mention of "beer and/or wine" being an exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.47.203 (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]