Talk:Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting: Difference between revisions

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Stub‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Politics: American Stub‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force. United States Stub‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

--Lightbreather (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preserve for possible use:

• Bunting, Glenn F. (November 9, 1993). "Feinstein Faces Fight for Diluted Gun Bill". Los Angeles Times.
• Eaton, William J. (May 5, 1994). "Ford, Carter, Reagan Push for Gun Ban". Los Angeles Times.
• Mohr, Charles (March 15, 1989). "U.S. Bans Imports of Assault Rifles in Shift by Bush". New York Times.
• Pazniokas, Mark (December 20, 1993). "One Gun's Journey Into A Crime". Courant. Hartford, Connecticut.
• "Senate restricts assault weapon imports, production". The Pittsburgh Press. Associated Press. May 23, 1990. p. A13.
• Rasky, Susan F. (July 8, 1989). "Import Ban on Assault Rifles Becomes Permanent". New York Times.
• Roth, Jeffrey A.; Koper, Christopher S. (1997). "Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Roth, Jeffrey A.; Koper, Christopher S. (1999). "Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban" (PDF). National Institute of Justice Research in Brief (NCJ 173405).
• Seelye, Katharine Q. (July 28, 1994). "Assault Weapons Ban Allowed To Stay in Anti-crime Measure". New York Times.
• Sugarmann, Josh (1994). "Reverse FIRE: The Brady Bill won't break the sick hold guns have on America. It's time for tougher measures". Mother Jones. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

--Lightbreather (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few more:

• http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/09/news/companies/assault-weapon-sales/index.html
• http://www.cnbc.com/id/100325110
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/sandy-hook-shooting-gun-sales_n_2317522.html
• http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Connecticut-gun-sales-soar-in-wake-of-Sandy-Hook-4139720.php
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264529/Gun-shops-running-weapons-sales-surge-following-Sandy-Hook-massacre-despite-Obamas-gun-control-speech.html#ixzz2yzjxugTL

--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone is wondering, I have kept the lead lean for now while I develop the body of the article, in keeping with WP:BETTER advice WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.

I am researching and writing just a few sentences at a time. My plan is to move this from stub- to start-level by midday on April 15.

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sue, you seem to be blowing me off on your talk page,[1], and with your edit summaries[2][3] so I'm moving the discussion here. Please stop! My requests to you are reasonable. What prompted this behavior? It makes me anxious.

Also, regarding the same edits. AWB 2013 can't be defunct because it never became law. It was a bill that didn't make it into law. Also, the bill wasn't only introduced by Feinstein. She was one of several legislators who introduced it. PLEASE, give me until midday tomorrow to finish what I started, and then jump in an re-write it from top to bottom if that's your wish. Lightbreather (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is it you want me to stop? Adding citable information to a Wikipedia article? If you have a specific objection to one of my edits, please bring it up here on the talk page so people can discuss it. I am human. I make the occasional mistake. But I am not going to *not* edit an article simply because it makes you "anxious". If you can't handle an editor making normal reasonable citable edits, then perhaps you need a Wikibreak. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I asked and am asking for is 72 hours - from midday Saturday, April 12 until midday April 15 - to finish what I started as a stub into a pretty decent, basic, cited with high-quality sources article. That is rather in keeping with our other agreement, and no other editor has felt the need to jump in and start challenging my work before I even had a chance to finish it. Please stop. Lightbreather (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this article is troubling as it suggest that there was some type of ban on so-called assault weapons in 2013. Is a failed piece of proposed legislation now considered notable?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was notable I think, but perhaps this article should be renamed as it is covering quite a bit more than just that law Something like Gun Control after the Sandy Hook Shooting or something. Since we are covering the state laws, and Obama's executive orders as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have WP:BOLDly renamed the article, and moved the content around a bit to deal with the expanded scope of the article (that we were already covering)Gaijin42 (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely notable, I think this change is for the better.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe you changed the focus, scope, and name of this article based on a brief exchange between yourself and one other pro-gun editor. How does one change it back. And then let's have a real discussion on its notability and name. Lightbreather (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that there should have been more discussion. So, my suggestion is to remove everything about the state-level legislation if you insist on referring to the flawed bill that failed on the federal level. These would be out of scope.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, gawd, thanks Mike. I didn't object to the questions, but the speed with which things were decided and changed kinda made my stomach turn. Lightbreather (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbreather Are you really asking editors to slow down, because their edits are hard to keep up with? You have set a very strong, repeated, precedent in that area. In any case it was WP:BOLD and you reverted, so lets discuss. Almost 2/3rds of the article is talking about something else other than the bill itself. You put 99% of that content into the article. All of the elements are notable and should be discussed, and all of the elements discussed have common threads and relationships between them - but a bill that failed (that everyone knew before hand would fail) is not really notable on its own. It was a symbolic gesture as part of the overall push. If you insist that this article should be about the single bill, then the other points should be deleted (and then the remainder is likely to be sent to AFD as WP:NOTNEWS & WP:10YT) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That first question and comment were a general slap and uncalled-for and I hope that you'll strike them. If you do, I'll strike this, too.

I will take you up on the last suggestion. Yes: I want this article to be about this bill. That was my goal from the start, and I believe that everything in this article was directly related to the bill, how it came about, and when and how it died. However, tell me what needs to be removed, and I'll do that. Then, go and write your "Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" and feel free to use anything I used here, if it will help. Lightbreather (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 notable? Yes. It passes all the tests under WP:GNG: Significant coverge (1) by reliable (2) secondary sources (3) independent of the subject (4). Further, it is NOT WP:ISNOT - particularly, it is NOT WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Lightbreather (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the suggestion that the topic might be considered recentism, considering that 10 years have passed since AWB 1994 expired and we're still hearing, reading, and talking about it, it's a little premature to say AWB 2013 - which we're still hearing, reading, and talking about - is 10YT. Lightbreather (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for its name, the Equal Rights Amendment failed to pass, but we didn't title that article "The failed Equal Rights Amendment" or "Equal Rights Amendment (failed)". Prohibition was repealed, but we didn't title that article "The repealed Prohibition Amendment" or "Prohibition (repealed)". WP:UCN says that "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" is the best name for this article - about AWB 2013. Lightbreather (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. AFD would tell us for sure. But if you are right, then all of the content not related to the bill should be removed, which I think you would not support. The 1994 bill was passed, and stayed in effect for many years. There were articles being written about it for the entire time (and still now). How many articles have been written about this bill in the last 6 months? It was a WP:ROUTINE WP:NOTNEWS spike. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please indicate here which of the 39 sources referenced in this article are not about or related to AWB 2013? Lightbreather (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ERA is also not a good analogue. Its now been active in the news from 1923 until 2014 years, with attempted ratification as recent as February. (Although if any progress is made on that front I would expect a major constitutional issue, since the amendment had a deadline in its text). Saying that this bill is as important as those is WP:CRYSTAL Gaijin42 (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I just read "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." Where did I say this bill was as important as those? And how does WP:CRYSTAL fit into that argument?

All I was commenting on was how they're named... Their article titles are simply what they're commonly called or referred to. People don't say and writers don't write, "the never-passed ERA," or "repealed Prohibition." They just write/say "the ERA" or "Prohibition." There is not Wikipedia policy that says you should include an amendment, bill, or law's status in its name; you simple make its status clear in the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. Lightbreather (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I am looking at this...No. Not notable. In fact this article should be deleted. First of all it wasn't a BAN, it was a BILL, and it failed quite badly. I will not place a deletion tag on this, however, because last time I did that, Lightbreather pulled me into ANI. Someone else will have to do that. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This failed piece of misguided legislation is not notable in and of itself. Now, if the article were called "Gun control in the wake of Sandy Hook" or something similar, I think you might have something. Look at NY, MD, CO and CT and the laws that passed as well as their repercussions. Colorado, for example, lost 2 senators to their legislation specifically because of their bill. Likewise, companies such as MagPul left the state and took millions in revenue plus employees with them. The firearms industry saw a surge in gun sales and NICS checks as a direct result that inflated prices on firearms, ammo and reloading components. For an unscientific test, call your local sporting goods retailer and tell them you want to purchase a 50 round box of 22lr ammunition or ask when the next shipment is coming here and brace yourself for the laughter. On its own, feinstein's bill is nothing more than a footnote in the history of failed attempts at gun control, but if Moms Against Guns or whatever other special interest group is rallying to see it incorporated into a wiki article, they will have to settle for one on the bigger picture.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, guys! I take my granddaughter to a swimming lesson and lunch, and when I come home, y'all have changed the focus and scope of the article, and renamed it to boot. What about Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, which the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting "Reactions" section already links to? What about the Assault weapons ban article, which has a "State assault weapons bans" section waiting for development?

Mike's original question was whether or not the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 was notable enough for its own article. Dang, guys. Let's start with that. Lightbreather (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By itself, no. WP:10YT. Legislation that failed is WP:NOTNEWS. But I didn't change the focus or scope of the article. All of those elements were in the article, and put there by you. I organized them to be coherent as the individual topics that they are, as they are not really part of the proposed ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back to join the discussion in a few minutes. I just want to semi-restore the article to where it was a couple of hours ago, but keeping most - maybe all - the stuff Gaijin added. Lightbreather (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't complain to me about Sue next time... Gaijin42 (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ignore that last remark. As for "I didn't change the focus or scope of the article," the focus and scope sre changed between when I went to lunch and when I came back.[4] The article is titled "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013." It was outlined and developed to be about that topic, which is notable enough for its own article. I only mentioned changes to state laws that were relevant to AWB 2013, but I did not include details about those laws - a few of which, yes, created or strengthened existing state laws, but many of which had nothing to do with assault weapons. Those kinds of details might go into one or more of these existing articles or article sections:

• Assault_weapons_ban#State_assault_weapon_bans
• Gun laws in the United States by state
• High-capacity magazine ban
• National Instant Criminal Background Check System
• Reactions_to_the_Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Political_responses
• Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Gun_control

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per consensus I have restored the version by Gaijin42. I would have restored the name-change as well, but somebody else will need to do that. LB, please get a handle on your ownership issues. Thanx. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please say in what way you've determined that there is a consensus. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I say its better. Mike says its better. Sue says its better. LB says its not. Wikipedia:NOTUNANIMITY . Consensus can change, but at this time there is consensus for my version, and not consensus for your version.Gaijin42 (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CONSENSUS: Every editor of the article wants it to read a certain way, and only one lone editor does not. EDITWARRING: When that lone editor ignores consensus and reverts all other versions but her own. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are now at at least 4RR, 2 of them being major reversions, and are the only editor saying that they prefer your version. I suggest you stop unilaterally deciding what consensus is before you get blocked.Gaijin42 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please show the 4RR. Lightbreather (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2 major reverts (obvious?). page title = 3. (Consider yourself warned). 3rd major revert (self reverted, not counting) - At least one of your other edits would count (although I think prior to your return the previous edits were good faith collaboration, which is why I am not reporting you. ) Up until your return I thought collaboration on the article was going swimmingly, and the first revert of my WP:BOLD changes fine (if somewhat incongruous with your complaints about others reverting you). Gaijin42 (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do your completely reorganizing the article and moving it to another page name count toward anything? If they're not reverts, what are they? I can't believe that's considered WP:CIVIL. Lightbreather (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are WP:BOLD and as they were consecutive edits would count as 1RR. If I were to have re-reverted you, they would certainly count towards my own 3rr. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to start an AfD... but please be fair and cite WP policy in presenting your reasons. Lightbreather (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think the article should be deleted. I think it should be talking about gun control after sandy hook, which is a notable topic. (And is in fact what the article does discuss, even in your prefered version) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a deletionist, as I have stated at least three times: I do not think that a failed bill is notable and as the article is titled it will lead to the impression that some sort of ban took affect in 2013. That may be good for the antigun counterculture to get their point of view ranked in the google searches, but that's about all that this sort of article would accomplish. I agree with Gaijin42, it could be included in a broader more informative and much more useful article on gun control post newtown, both the massive failures and the minor successes of that movement.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a better idea to start an ANI due to the 4RR violation. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please show the 4RR... also, assuming there were four, did I get a 3RR warning? Lightbreather (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough drama on the topic of gun control for now. Im willing to let the extra R slip for now if LB backs away from WP:OWN (especially since the alternate version includes ALL of her content, so her objection is really confusing to me) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, but this article needs to be renamed, because as it stands, the name is completely inappropriate. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Gaijin, as a show of good-faith, would you please restore the article to where it was before I went to lunch, so that we may continue discussing this and try to reach a true consensus, and not Sue's two-or-three-of-us-outnumber-you kind. Maybe we can start an RfC? (I'm still hoping someone will help me craft two for the "assault weapon" "high-capacity magazine" question.) Lightbreather (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a show of good faith why don't you discuss it in the current state, since ALL of your content is included here, and all I did was rearrange it since OBama's proposals, and state level actions are not part of the specific bill. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For Pete's sake, Gaijin, I didn't have any state-level details in the article - you added them. Nor did I have Obama's executive actions in the article. I had the things he asked Congress to do in the article, which you deleted - and then inserted his executive actions.

When I tried to include the things he asked Congress to do on the Gun politics in the U.S. page, you reverted those TWICE:

Revert 1. [5] Edit summary: details of legislation that didn't pass don't pass the WP:10YT in an overview article like this.

Revert 2. [6] Edit summary: Discuss previous law and national discussions in their proper context. stupid to list failed legislation. We could fill the article with megabytes of that.

You even said to me on your talk page: If Obama's proposals need more detail, make a spinoff article.... [7]

Why don't you write an article called "Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting"? This could then be the main article for AWB 2013 portion of that lengthier article.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Im happy to have an RFC on both issues here (the organization, and title), and if you want, we can craft a mutually acceptable text for the RFC. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think an RFC is an excellent idea. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started the AFD--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbreather You have attributed several edits to me above. I think you are quite confused. The Executive actions and legislative proposals were added by you in these two Diffs. [8][9] I did not in any way delete, edit, or replace these bullet points or prose you added, except to break them out into their own section. you added information about the state law changes in these edits [10] [11]Yes, I did expand that section, to add where gun control was relaxed, but that was clearly needed to provide WP:NPOV You can't just show one half of the story, especially when the ~twice (?) as many states relaxed laws as made them more strict. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At present, there is a sizable paragraph at the start of the article in the "Background" section consisting of extended comments from the NRA's executive VP from a speech he gave. It's sourced to a transcript of his direct remarks, hence in effect it is using primary sourcing to put forth his gun control arguments and commentary at considerable length. If this material is going to remain in the article, it really needs to be pared down and relocated to an appropriate location in the article to avoid the undue weight and coverage it has in it's current form and location. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Id qualify that as "extended" its 3 quotes, all of which were discussed widely in the media. It should not be an issue to find WP:SECONDARY sources for that. As for WP:DUE as this is pretty much the main representation of the gun owners response to the shooting, its balanced against all of the other gun control efforts and multiple quotes from Feinstein, Obama, etc. One paragraph seems appropriate to me. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The background section has two short sentences mentioning 26 people got killed in one of the deadliest shootings ever, then more than three times as much material devoted solely to a high ranking official of the NRA making politically charged one-sided remarks against gun control from a speech a week after the public's reaction to the killings. The material has been cherry picked from a primary transcript to present a specific POV. If that section instead contained a lengthy selection of quotes and arguments from Senator Feinstein's views against guns (using a primary source), it would be equally inappropriate, especially staged at the front of the article like this. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely fine with moving it out of the lede/background into an NRA proposal section or something to be at the same level as the other parties involved. (will WP:BOLDly do now) Regarding "cherry picked" The entire paragraph was written by a pro-control editor [12], and All of those bits were well covered in the news at the time, so I really don't think "cherry pick" is an appropriate way of describing it. [13] [14][15][16][17][18] Gaijin42 (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The panic buyin is sourced well, but saying the ammo shortage is a result of the shooting and proposed legislation is a bit much imo. There are may causes for the shortage, and many more alleged causes for the shortage (eg massive buys by the govt) so we should not be putting this all on Newtown's shoulders. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the disputed bit. It was unsourced, and my reading of s.150 doesn't agree. (p120 seems to say transfers still allowed, just have to go to a FFL first) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Work on your comprehension skills. You could not sell a grandfathered AW under this legislation. One incarnation from the senator who Cannot Understand Normal Thought was to register these with the NFA and not allow transfers, too.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]