Wikipedia's pro-gun misinformation

Lightbreather · Unread post by **Lightbreather** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:13 pm

Here is an example of the one-sided, pro-gun information on Wikipedia right now.

According to Civil liberties in the United States' "Right to bear arms" section - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_lib ... _bear_arms - the Second Amendment is no longer controversial. To be precise, "The amendment was legally controversial until a Supreme Court case in 2008."

You heard it on Wikipedia first, folks.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:40 pm

As with many hot topics on WP, content becomes a test of strength between Pro- and Anti- activists. This is no doubt reflected in the content of gun-related pieces, since the number of Pro-gun activists outstrips the Antis- by something like 10-to-1. Just guessing on that ratio, but it is probably close.

The only reason that content isn't more wack and skewed than it is is that many of the Pro-gun activists are only semi-literate.

RfB

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 3:11 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:since the number of Pro-gun activists outstrips the Antis- by something like 10-to-1. Just guessing on that ratio, but it is probably close.

One can never be too careful

you never knows what might turn up again.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:11 pm

Not including military and police weapons there are more firearms than people in the US. I heard numbers recently that there are approximately 400-450 million firearms just in the hands of private citizens and something like a trillion rounds of ammunition. Add to that the frenzy of gun purchases everytime someone says gun ban in the news and I am left with the feeling that the anti gun owners are more of a vocal minority than a will of the people.

You might be able to ban guns in some places like New Hampshire or New York...try that in Texas and Montana though and its a totally different story.

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:13 pm

It's a tough thing to talk about in the U.S. A large segment of the pro-gun side are the easily manipulated types, while a lot of the anti-gun folks are the overly-emotional types. This leaves people like myself, who are ok with responsible gun ownership but feel like something is terribly wrong when mass shootings are just the new normal, (provided the shooter is a deranged white male) feeling somewhat lost.

After Sandy Hook a rumor went around that somehow Obama was personally going to ban large purchases of .22 long rifle ammuntion. There was never a speck of truth to it, yet for nearly two years after that what was the cheapest, most readily available ammunition became hard to find and sharply overpriced. Stores put their own limits on purchases to prevent hoarding, and the frenzy got worse. The rumors expanded to large capacity magazines for the same ammo. At least one manufacturer of said magazines raised their price from $35 to $150, and stated they still could not make them fast enough to keep up with demand. It seems very likely these rumors were actually started by the manufacturers to increase the cost of what had always been cheap stuff before, yet the gun nuts bought the whole story and hoarded like mad.

On the other hand, we saw stores pulling the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle from their shelves because the Sandy Hook shooter used one. Never mind that they still sold many other weapons capable of murdering a room full of children on a cash-and-carry basis, this one was now the ultimate evil because Adam Lanza had one. People who knew nothing about guns went on tv and railed against anyone having any kind of semiauto gun, apparently confusing them with full-auto military style weapons and unaware that this includes the majority of handguns.

This is the kind of thinking one is up against when talking about guns in this country. It is also what keeps a lot of people from wanting to touch these articles.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:47 pm

That's a good post.

Add to the mix the insanity of the NRA and everything goes sideways.

As a gun owner and avid shooter, I hate the NRA with a passion.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:53 pm

You bring up some good points. Unfortunately if someone wakes up and get's it in their head to kill a bunch of people, having access to handguns of any kind really doesn't matter. Timothy McVey used fertilizer, the guys at the Boston Marathon used pressure cookers and those are just 2 examples. Even if the government went house to house and forcibly removed every firearm and ammunition from the entire country there would still be mass killings using other means.

The problem isn't the weapons being used but the people using them. The US doesn't do a great job of treating people with mental illnesses and if we made some changes to that, then some of these could be prevented. The Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis called in for help several times to the VA about hearing voices but was declined help (not to mention the VA didn't mention that to law enforcement or anyone).

Unfortunately however, as the population grows so will the number of incidents.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 8:34 pm

Kumioko wrote:You bring up some good points. Unfortunately if someone wakes up and get's it in their head to kill a bunch of people, having access to handguns of any kind really doesn't matter. Timothy McVey used fertilizer, the guys at the Boston Marathon used pressure cookers and those are just 2 examples. Even if the government went house to house and forcibly removed every firearm and ammunition from the entire country there would still be mass killings using other means.

That seems plausible, but the evidence from other countries is that mass killing by other means is rare and difficult. Getting hold of something really nasty like Semtex is virtually impossible unless you're in league with a foreign government, like the IRA and Gaddafi's Libya.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Thu Mar 24, 2016 9:01 pm

We also have to remember that culturally we Americans have a lot of freedoms that many countries don't have. Like the right to bear arms. We can move freely about from one place to another without needing papers or getting harassed (too much). We can fairly easily get weapons, we have freedom of the press and the like that many places don't, etc. Also, its actually been tracked that in a lot of places that eliminated citizens having guns, violent crimes went up. Not because the guns went away, but because criminals don't care about the law they are breaking having one. It only affects the law abiding citizen.

Lightbreather · Unread post by **Lightbreather** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:08 am

Beeblebrox wrote:... A large segment of the pro-gun side are the easily manipulated types, while a lot of the anti-gun folks are the overly-emotional types. ...

I believe I agree with everything you wrote, except this sentence. Emotions are high on both sides.

Lightbreather · Unread post by **Lightbreather** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:16 am

Kumioko wrote:You bring up some good points. Unfortunately if someone wakes up and get's it in their head to kill a bunch of people, having access to handguns of any kind really doesn't matter....

Kumioko wrote:We also have to remember that culturally we Americans have a lot of freedoms that many countries don't have. Like the right to bear arms. We can move freely about from one place to another without needing papers or getting harassed (too much). We can fairly easily get weapons, we have freedom of the press and the like that many places don't, etc. Also, its actually been tracked that in a lot of places that eliminated citizens having guns, violent crimes went up. Not because the guns went away, but because criminals don't care about the law they are breaking having one. It only affects the law abiding citizen.

This Gun Politics 101 stuff. You need to inform yourself, but for gawd's sake, if you use Wikipedia, pay attention to the depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. And pay attention to the sources!

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:22 am

Lightbreather wrote:
Kumioko wrote:You bring up some good points. Unfortunately if someone wakes up and get's it in their head to kill a bunch of people, having access to handguns of any kind really doesn't matter....

Kumioko wrote:We also have to remember that culturally we Americans have a lot of freedoms that many countries don't have. Like the right to bear arms. We can move freely about from one place to another without needing papers or getting harassed (too much). We can fairly easily get weapons, we have freedom of the press and the like that many places don't, etc. Also, its actually been tracked that in a lot of places that eliminated citizens having guns, violent crimes went up. Not because the guns went away, but because criminals don't care about the law they are breaking having one. It only affects the law abiding citizen.
This Gun Politics 101 stuff. You need to inform yourself, but for gawd's sake, if you use Wikipedia, pay attention to the depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. And pay attention to the sources!

Oh I have and I have seen a lot of stuff that was wrong but I can't do anything to change it.

Lightbreather · Unread post by **Lightbreather** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:25 am

Kumioko wrote:Not including military and police weapons there are more firearms than people in the US. I heard numbers recently that there are approximately 400-450 million firearms just in the hands of private citizens .... I am left with the feeling that the anti gun owners are more of a vocal minority than a will of the people.

"I heard"? Educate yourself. And mind the sources. These guns aren't evenly distributed among the US's citizens. The gun owners are the vocal minority.

Lightbreather · Unread post by **Lightbreather** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:48 am

Here's another example of Wikipedia's pro-gun misinformation: Nazi gun control theory (T-H-L).

Thanks to pro-gun editors like Godsy (T-C-L) *cough* sock and Faceless Enemy (T-C-L) *cough* 'nother sock (with a little help from Sitush playing defense simply because I was involved) this article, which is categorized as a Fringe theory, has gone from being what a WP:FRINGE article is supposed to be, to a few tweaks and a rename away from presenting to the world, in Wikipedia's voice, that "Nazi gun control" is a legitimate thing.

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:53 am

Lightbreather wrote:Here's another example of Wikipedia's pro-gun misinformation: Nazi gun control theory (T-H-L).

Thanks to pro-gun editors like Godsy (T-C-L) *cough* sock and Faceless Enemy (T-C-L) *cough* 'nother sock (with a little help from Sitush playing defense simply because I was involved) this article, which is categorized as a Fringe theory, has gone from being what a WP:FRINGE article is supposed to be, to a few tweaks and a rename away from presenting to the world, in Wikipedia's voice, that "Nazi gun control" is a legitimate thing.

That'll be the article that you created for no good reason...

Lightbreather · Unread post by **Lightbreather** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 1:12 am

AndyTheGrump wrote:
Lightbreather wrote:Here's another example of Wikipedia's pro-gun misinformation: Nazi gun control theory (T-H-L)....
That'll be the article that you created for no good reason...

I created it for a very good reason: to keep discussion about "Nazi gun control" out of legitimate gun-politics articles. Gaijin42 and friends insisting that it ought to be in the main Gun control article is what lead to the Gun control ArbCom. However, having edited on WP several years longer than I, you knew that the pro-gun element would twist it into what they wanted it to be.

Black Kite · Unread post by **Black Kite** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 1:14 am

Kumioko wrote:We also have to remember that culturally we Americans have a lot of freedoms that many countries don't have. Like the right to bear arms. We can move freely about from one place to another without needing papers or getting harassed (too much). We can fairly easily get weapons, we have freedom of the press and the like that many places don't, etc. Also, its actually been tracked that in a lot of places that eliminated citizens having guns, violent crimes went up. Not because the guns went away, but because criminals don't care about the law they are breaking having one. It only affects the law abiding citizen.

Well, yes and no. The pro-gun lobby likes to point towards the fact that the UK's firearms-related murder rate today is pretty much the same as it was in 1996, when the handgun ban was enacted (indeed it went up after the ban, but has fallen since). That's true, but it misses the point that the actual number of gun-related murders in 1996 was actually very low in relation to the total number of murders anyway; the law was enacted in reaction to a horrific event but one which was completely out of the ordinary.

The difference is spree killings; they were a total rarity in the UK before and after the gun ban (one since, and that with a lawfully owned rifle) -most gun related murders were single murders or the occasional armed robbery gone wrong. Meanwhile, their incidence has risen massively in the US - and with ridiculously easy access to serious weaponry, that translates into a higher murder rate. One could presume that if the level of gun ownership seen in the US was replicated in the UK, we'd see the same thing; the only other variable would be that the US has more psychopaths. Since that's unlikely, one has to presume that the UK gun ban is indeed responsible for the low murder rate.

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 1:27 am

Lightbreather wrote:
AndyTheGrump wrote:
Lightbreather wrote:Here's another example of Wikipedia's pro-gun misinformation: Nazi gun control theory (T-H-L)....
That'll be the article that you created for no good reason...
I created it for a very good reason: to keep discussion about "Nazi gun control" out of legitimate gun-politics articles. Gaijin42 and friends insisting that it ought to be in the main Gun control article is what lead to the Gun control ArbCom. However, having edited on WP several years longer than I, you knew that the pro-gun element would twist it into what they wanted it to be.

Yup. Create an article on a counterfactual 'historical' fantasy only ever advanced by the U.S. firearms lobby, and you can guarantee that their supporters will try to put their spin on it. Utterly predictable. And stupid, since there was no need for it in the first place.

Lightbreather · Unread post by **Lightbreather** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 1:36 am

Black Kite wrote:... The difference is spree killings; they were a total rarity in the UK before and after the gun ban (one since, and that with a lawfully owned rifle) -most gun related murders were single murders or the occasional armed robbery gone wrong. Meanwhile, their incidence has risen massively in the US - and with ridiculously easy access to serious weaponry, that translates into a higher murder rate. One could presume that if the level of gun ownership seen in the US was replicated in the UK, we'd see the same thing; the only other variable would be that the US has more psychopaths. Since that's unlikely, one has to presume that the UK gun ban is indeed responsible for the low murder rate.

This is absolutely correct when it comes to talking about gun violence committed against others, and not just mass shootings. Easy access to guns has also made it easier for Americans to kill their wives and girlfriends and themselves.
Study: Guns in home increase suicide, homicide risk, CBS News, January 2014

How U.S. gun deaths compare to other countries, CBS News, February 2016
Americans are 10 times more likely to be killed by guns than people in other developed countries. The U.S. accounts for 90 percent of women and 91 percent of children under 14 killed by guns in developed countries.

Lightbreather · Unread post by **Lightbreather** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 1:54 am

AndyTheGrump wrote:Yup. Create an article on a counterfactual 'historical' fantasy only ever advanced by the U.S. firearms lobby, and you can guarantee that their supporters will try to put their spin on it. Utterly predictable. And stupid, since there was no need for it in the first place.

The intent was to give them a place to put their material without the recurring disruption to mainstream gun-politics articles. The reality is that they're going to have their article, make it appear not to be about a fringe theory, and probably eventually use the article to disrupt mainstream articles again. I see that now. (Despite the narrative that's been created about me, I'm not very good at playing the games played on Wikipedia. If I were better at it, maybe I wouldn't have been banned. Maybe.)

I've acknowledged that you were right. Is there something else you want?

Lightbreather · Unread post by **Lightbreather** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 2:23 am

Here's another example of Wikipedia's pro-gun misinformation: Right to keep and bear arms (T-H-L) and Right to keep and bear arms in the United States (T-H-L).

The Gun control (T-H-L) article was created in 2002.

But the Gun rights (T-H-L) article? It was also created in 2002, as a redirect to Gun politics (T-H-L). It stayed that way for five years. Then, for almost nine years, it redirected to variations of RKBA. These articles were used as a substitute for what should have been a neutrally titled "Gun rights" article for nearly 14 years. For 14 years, Wikipedia readers have been reading one article using the WP:COMMONNAME title of "Gun control" and one with the pro-gun POV title "Right to keep and bear arms" - which is not a neutral synonym for "gun rights".

Another interesting thing about the RKBA article. It was created in 2003, as a redirect to Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 2006, it started its life as its own little topic.

Recently, Felsic2 started developing the Gun rights article. Considering that he's significantly outnumbered by the RKBA crowd (including Gaijin42, Faceless Enemy, and a host of IP editors), its probably going to be quite painful to watch.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 2:25 am

This is not the place for you to fight your gun control battle. We get that you think that Wikipedia's coverage of firearm rights and gun control is not neutral. None of this are particularly surprised at this; virtually every topic of any real import on Wikipedia is subject to such distortions.

What you have not done is said anything about this that is interesting, from a standpoint of criticism of Wikipedia generally.

Lightbreather · Unread post by **Lightbreather** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 2:35 am

Kelly Martin wrote:What you have not done is said anything about this that is interesting, from a standpoint of criticism of Wikipedia generally.

Per the forum's mission statement, this thread "shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia ... to inoculate the unsuspecting public against the torrent of misinformation, defamation, and general nonsense that issues forth" from its gun politics articles. Do you think it's likely that anyone reading this thread - say maybe the press - might find it interesting? That's what this forum is all about. And this subject is literally a life-and-death subject, not just about the fact that Jimbo Wales likes pretty girls or some stupid thing Ironholds said on IRC six years ago.

Add: Also, Zoloft kinda invited me to create this thread here: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=7499#p177026.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 2:36 am

Kelly Martin wrote:This is not the place for you to fight your gun control battle. We get that you think that Wikipedia's coverage of firearm rights and gun control is not neutral. None of this are particularly surprised at this; virtually every topic of any real import on Wikipedia is subject to such distortions.

What you have not done is said anything about this that is interesting, from a standpoint of criticism of Wikipedia generally.

Can I get an AMEN?!

Praise the Lord!
I said, "BE HEALED!!!"

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:00 am

All of this would make an interesting Wikipediocracy blog entry.

Lightbreather · Unread post by **Lightbreather** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:06 am

Johnny Au wrote:All of this would make an interesting Wikipediocracy blog entry.

I would do it with help of one of this forum's respected, longer-term members, but not alone. My name alone on it would just invite heckling by the usual gang.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:34 am

Lightbreather wrote:...not just about the fact that Jimbo Wales likes pretty girls...

What if I told you that Jimmy likes guns and used to make them the subject of the earliest articles he ever created on Wikipedia in 2001 and 2002?

Lightbreather · Unread post by **Lightbreather** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 4:19 am

thekohser wrote:
Lightbreather wrote:...not just about the fact that Jimbo Wales likes pretty girls...
What if I told you that Jimmy likes guns and used to make them the subject of the earliest articles he ever created on Wikipedia in 2001 and 2002?

I wouldn't be surprised. Libertarians are more pro-gun/anti-control than Republicans.

Kelly Martin · Unread post by **Kelly Martin** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 4:34 am

Lightbreather wrote:Do you think it's likely that anyone reading this thread - say maybe the press - might find it interesting?

No, the press won't find it interesting. For it to be interesting, you'd have to show a direct connection between Wikipedia editing and a public official. "Gun enthusiasts and gun control advocates argue on Internet over gun rights" is not newsworthy.

If you want to make this into a story, you need to connect the dots: you need to tie editors who are arguing for specific positions with the organizations that are backing them, and you need to show that what they're doing on Wikipedia is actually influencing opinions. You haven't done either, and I rather doubt that you can do either.

All you're doing is posting one-sided anecdotes of a handful of anonymous nobodies who are more effective at advocating for their position than you are at yours. All this does is make you look like you've been overmatched, and, bitter at losing the debate, are turning to secondary fora to try to undermine your opponent's victory as ill-gotten. Fortunately for you, nobody cares.

Lightbreather · Unread post by **Lightbreather** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 5:13 am

Kelly Martin wrote:If you want to make this into a story, you need to connect the dots: you need to tie editors who are arguing for specific positions with the organizations that are backing them...

Someone with better technical skills and tools would be a help.

Kelly Martin wrote:... and you need to show that what they're doing on Wikipedia is actually influencing opinions.

Are you suggesting that articles - especially political articles - that top every Google search that people make to answer their questions do not influence opinions? Isn't the very fact that WP misinforms one of the reasons that this forum was created?

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 5:22 am

At least this topic is about Wikipedia and an important bias. Dig deeper. Find IP editors, for example, and figure out if they are coming from, using whois and other tools. Find corporate or government types, and tie them back to their origins and their COI. Check Wikipedia usernames against corporate PR employyes (perhaps gun manufacturers).

Go beyond the contentious articles and look at articles about the manufacturers and their models of guns. Who edits those? Who makes them promotional and removes controversy?

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 5:24 am

Remember one thing: "It's wrong because I said so!" — convinced nobody never.

greyed.out.fields · Unread post by **greyed.out.fields** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:00 am

OK, may as well get this over with.

So I notice my neighbor, who is a nut-job, has an AR-15. Because I have the constitutional right to do so, get myself an AR-15 too. That's rational, right? No. Now you have two nut-jobs with AR-15s. The rational thing would be for neither of us to have guns to start with.

There's a lot of emotion and not a lot of logic in this debate. I see no good reason why civilians should own firearms designed to kill other human beings, in the US or anywhere else. I'm amazed (actually I'm not, but whatever) that the so-called right to own guns is accepted as a given. In this thread, elsewhere. (And since we all know this backwards, just the catchwords: Second Amendment, smooth bore muzzle-loader, black powder, never envisioned, assault rifle, high-capacity magazine. Done.)

Sure, go hunting if you must. Keep those guns very secure. Maybe it would be a good idea to have them stored at your local sheriffs or police station, released only to you on on specified days in the hunting season on presentation on your drivers licence, your shooters licence and an itinerary of when, where and what you intend to shoot, etc etc.

Aside from its utility in robbing banks and executing gangland rivals, what rational reason is there to own a weapon like this? "Because I can" and "because I want one" do not appear to me cogent arguments.

Back on topic: Lightbreather, the reason why you see pro-gun misinformation all over Wikipedia is because you see anything pro-gun as misinformation.

Back off topic: but then again, from my perspective, you are pretty pro-gun yourself.

Oops: "Keep those gun very secure" -> "Keep those guns very secure"

Zironic · Unread post by **Zironic** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:32 am

greyed.out.fields wrote:OK, may as well get this over with.

So I notice my neighbor, who is a nut-job, has an AR-15. Because I have the constitutional right to do so, get myself an AR-15 too. That's rational, right? No. Now you have two nut-jobs with AR-15s. The rational thing would be for neither of us to have guns to start with.

There's a lot of emotion and not a lot of logic in this debate. I see no good reason why civilians should own firearms designed to kill other human beings, in the US or anywhere else. I'm amazed (actually I'm not, but whatever) that the so-called right to own guns is accepted as a given. In this thread, elsewhere. (And since we all know this backwards, just the catchwords: Second Amendment, smooth bore muzzle-loader, black powder, never envisioned, assault rifle, high-capacity magazine. Done.)

My understanding is that rifles are involved in very few crimes, regardless if they're AR-15's, hunting rifles or 'assault rifles'.

These statistics appear to back me up:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/c ... 9-2013.xls
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

The reason is probably pretty simple, it's fairly hard to walk around with a concealed rifle but it's fairly easy to walk around with a concealed handgun. If your concern is lowering the amount of people dying in gun related violence, it's the handguns you want to get rid off, not the AR-15's or hunting rifles.

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 2:31 pm

Here's my half-baked philosophy on the topic. The conundrum with the gun control debate is that both sides are right. It is true that the availability of guns facilitates the killing of people in accidents, suicides, crime, and fits of passion. Also, the availability of military-style weapons allows gangsters and psychos to kill more people in less time when they go on a spree than if they were using another type of weapon, like a machete.

However, hunting still is a valid means of obtaining game meat in many parts of the US. I hunted at times when I was younger and lived in a small town. Also, realistically, it's going to take the police 5-10 minutes to respond after you call them, so possession of a gun might save your life or save you from rape, robbery, or other injury or violation. Responsible private citizens wielding guns have saved lives and prevented injury by criminals and psychos. The threat of guns probably does help cut down on the number of home invasion and other robberies that occur in the US, especially in the country where gun ownership is more prevalent.

So, turning this back to Wikipedia, how does Wikipedia's model work with this debate? Is it working, or is it failing? Looks to me like it's a seesaw battle between opponents on either side and they're using the usual wiki-tricks to try to win content wars. Who has time for that? Why not allow someone who can present both sides objectively write the articles? Well, because someone like that probably has better things to do.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:19 pm

Cla68 wrote:Why not allow someone who can present both sides objectively write the articles? Well, because someone like that probably has better things to do.

Also, what soes "objective" mean? To the average British reader, Cla's analysis would look very pro-gun. That's why WP:NPOV is such an elusive concept.

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 3:51 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Cla68 wrote:Why not allow someone who can present both sides objectively write the articles? Well, because someone like that probably has better things to do.
Also, what soes "objective" mean? To the average British reader, Cla's analysis would look very pro-gun. That's why WP:NPOV is such an elusive concept.

My take was as someone living in the US. In Japan, it's different because the situation is different. That island nation has gun control so locked down that, along with the cultural aspects of collective guilt and other things, makes violent crime much more rare. So, in Japan you could probably rely on your fists, feet, and some MA training to get you out of most situations (although psychos do go on spree killings there with knives).

So, NPOV changes depending on the culture and environment.

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 6:13 pm

greyed.out.fields wrote:

Aside from its utility in robbing banks and executing gangland rivals, what rational reason is there to own a weapon like this? "Because I can" and "because I want one" do not appear to me cogent arguments.

I have a Remington 870 12 guage short barrel that is very similar to this one, other than the pistol grip. Other than just enjoying a good shotgun, the reason I have it is simple: bears. Black bears come right into town where I live. Last year one was pooping on my property about once a week. I never actually saw it, but the evidence indicates it found my place to be a quiet oasis for napping and crapping, while still close to town were some people are still dumb/inconsiderate enough to leave their garbage out where bears can get into it. There are a variety of 12-gauge slugs designed specifically for taking down bears, they are quite devastating at close range and substantially less expensive and easier to master than a large caliber revolver or a big hunting rifle. I personally know someone who has had to do this in his own front yard.

For those same reasons it is also an excellent home defense weapon. I sincerely hope never to use it for either purpose, but if confronted by an angry bear or a desperate junkie trying to invade my home I'd like to be able to do something about it.

Earthy Astringent · Unread post by **Earthy Astringent** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:40 pm

Lightbreather wrote:
Beeblebrox wrote:... A large segment of the pro-gun side are the easily manipulated types, while a lot of the anti-gun folks are the overly-emotional types. ...
I believe I agree with everything you wrote, except this sentence. Emotions are high on both sides.

That was the most astute statement made on this thread, except they are both easily manipulated and overly emotional. To some extent, the same thing could be said about abortion.

Lightbreather · Unread post by **Lightbreather** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:53 pm

Zoloft wrote:At least this topic is about Wikipedia and an important bias. Dig deeper. Find IP editors, for example, and figure out if they are coming from, using whois and other tools. Find corporate or government types, and tie them back to their origins and their COI. Check Wikipedia usernames against corporate PR employyes (perhaps gun manufacturers).

Go beyond the contentious articles and look at articles about the manufacturers and their models of guns. Who edits those? Who makes them promotional and removes controversy?

The gun model angle is one I haven't looked at much. The WP:GUNS project Criminal use guideline says:

In order for a criminal use to be notable enough for inclusion in the article on the gun used, it must meet some criteria. For instance, legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage (ex. ban on mail-order of firearms after use of the Carcano (T-H-L) in JFK's assassination would qualify). Similarly, if its notoriety greatly increased (ex. the Intratec TEC-DC9 (T-H-L) became infamous as a direct result of Columbine (T-H-L)). As per WP:UNDUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.".

That kinda implies that those articles would cover those weapons' criminal use, so it would probably be worth a look to see if those articles still do cover that.

Smith & Wesson M&P15 (T-H-L) had two sourced sentences in its History section, but Gaijin42 deleted it. I would think AR-15 (T-H-L) and Glock (T-H-L) would be good places to look, as they have virtually no information about their criminal use. (I know they're not models, but Glock has its own bestselling, nonfiction book. One chapter, "Massacre in Killeen", is about the Luby's shooting in Texas. And the AR-15 is a notorious criminal platform.) Another thing worth looking at: High-capacity magazine (T-H-L).

This is going to be a lot of work, and not work that is my strong suit. Also, as I said earlier, if it's only me who reports on this, many will simply dismiss it from the start.

Is there anyone here willing to help me with this? I would be most beholden.

Lightbreather · Unread post by **Lightbreather** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:56 pm

Zoloft wrote:Remember one thing: "It's wrong because I said so!" — convinced nobody never.

C'mon, man! You gave me nice, concrete advice that I appreciated, and then you had to post this right after? Have I ever said, "It's wrong because I said so!"?

Earthy Astringent · Unread post by **Earthy Astringent** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:20 pm

Lightbreather wrote:
Kumioko wrote:Not including military and police weapons there are more firearms than people in the US. I heard numbers recently that there are approximately 400-450 million firearms just in the hands of private citizens .... I am left with the feeling that the anti gun owners are more of a vocal minority than a will of the people.
"I heard"? Educate yourself. And mind the sources. These guns aren't evenly distributed among the US's citizens. The gun owners are the vocal minority.

And these vocal minority, the owners, aren't, for the most part the ones responsible for the mass shootings. I'd venture to say that most people in the US don't give two rat farts about them, because if anything they are going to be killed by their own stupidity. What really scares people is how someone who is determined to go all Columbine on some target is how they can acquire such weaponry with minimal hassle.

A landlord leased out an unused storefront to a gun seller and the (very blue) neighborhood exploded with rage (perish the thought). They raised such a hue that the local news stations each sent a truck and some some poor schmuck/schmuckette for some 11 o'clock funtime. So the neighborhood held meetings, and the gun nutters drove hundreds of miles to sit in these meetings while carrying openly. Talk about the Striesand effect. And what no one on either side seemed to realize, or just chose to ignore, is that there is a family run business less than a 5 minute drive away that has been selling firearms for over 50 years. NIMBY vs Paranoid.

Lightbreather · Unread post by **Lightbreather** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:32 pm

In July 2012, Saukkomies (T-C-L) suggested that the AR-15 article ought to mention its criminal use. The poor guy was shot down by a half-dozen or so pro-gun guys. I recognize two names: ROG5728 (T-C-L), who was banned in the Gun control ArbCom, and Miguel Escopeta (T-C-L), who's still editing, though he had to take a break last year. Another, L1A1 FAL (T-C-L) (who has a secondary account, T48 FAL (T-C-L)), I never had the pleasure to work with. Plus a few IPs. In December 2012, SebastianHelm (T-C-L) started the discussion Use in killing sprees, with the usual pro-gun responses. This pre-dates my active editing on Wikipedia, but it looks completely familiar to me.

Lightbreather · Unread post by **Lightbreather** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:42 pm

Earthy Astringent wrote:What really scares people is how someone who is determined to go all Columbine on some target is how they can acquire such weaponry with minimal hassle.

That is a concern, but equally concerning, if one is a woman, is the statistic that I mentioned earlier. The U.S. accounts for 90 percent of women and 91 percent of children under 14 killed by guns in developed countries. Then there's the sky-high gun suicide rate in this country. I came this close to losing my oldest son to that after he came home from Iraq and was having a hard time.

I am not anti-gun. I am pro-regulation. Americans should be able to get guns, but not any guns they want. Not as many guns as they want. Not as easily as buying a loaf of bread. And they certainly should not be carrying them outside the boundaries of their own properties. That's my stance in a nutshell. (These stories of citizens preventing crimes out in public are exaggerated. Gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or a family member or friend at home than they are to stop a bad guy with a gun in public.)

Earthy Astringent · Unread post by **Earthy Astringent** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:00 pm

Kelly Martin wrote:
All you're doing is posting one-sided anecdotes of a handful of anonymous nobodies who are more effective at advocating for their position than you are at yours. All this does is make you look like you've been overmatched, and, bitter at losing the debate, are turning to secondary fora to try to undermine your opponent's victory as ill-gotten. Fortunately for you, nobody cares.

And I'll add that Lightbreather's rivals are far better at pushing their POV through the use of the usual tactics to win Wikipedia fights.

If you're playing a poker game and you look around the table and and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you.

DHeyward · Unread post by **DHeyward** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 10:07 pm

Lightbreather wrote:Here is an example of the one-sided, pro-gun information on Wikipedia right now.

According to Civil liberties in the United States' "Right to bear arms" section - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_lib ... _bear_arms - the Second Amendment is no longer controversial. To be precise, "The amendment was legally controversial until a Supreme Court case in 2008."

You heard it on Wikipedia first, folks.

Sorry to say this but I laughed out loud after reading RfB's sentence considering your unpleasant experience and hearing a Will Ferrell quote from the "The Other Guys"

"You are out-gunned and out-manned."

BTW, the wording should be that it is settled law rather than uncontroversial. Roe v. Wade is settled law but abortion is controversial.

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:47 am

Bernie Sanders has quite an interesting stance in the firearms ownership debate.

He opposed Brady's bill, despite being a progressive. Sander's argument was that individual owners are responsible, not the gun manufacturers.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 3:17 am

Lightbreather wrote:
Earthy Astringent wrote:What really scares people is how someone who is determined to go all Columbine on some target is how they can acquire such weaponry with minimal hassle.
That is a concern, but equally concerning, if one is a woman, is the statistic that I mentioned earlier. The U.S. accounts for 90 percent of women and 91 percent of children under 14 killed by guns in developed countries. Then there's the sky-high gun suicide rate in this country. I came this close to losing my oldest son to that after he came home from Iraq and was having a hard time.

I am not anti-gun. I am pro-regulation. Americans should be able to get guns, but not any guns they want. Not as many guns as they want. Not as easily as buying a loaf of bread. And they certainly should not be carrying them outside the boundaries of their own properties. That's my stance in a nutshell. (These stories of citizens preventing crimes out in public are exaggerated. Gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves or a family member or friend at home than they are to stop a bad guy with a gun in public.)

Lots of background checks, liceneed dealers and 15 day bread waiting periods on your planet?

Lightbreather · Unread post by **Lightbreather** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 3:58 am

Vigilant wrote:
Lightbreather wrote:I am not anti-gun. I am pro-regulation. Americans should be able to get guns, but not any guns they want. Not as many guns as they want. Not as easily as buying a loaf of bread. And they certainly should not be carrying them outside the boundaries of their own properties. That's my stance in a nutshell.
Lots of background checks, liceneed dealers and 15 day bread waiting periods on your planet?

Only if you buy from someone with an FBL (Federal Bread License).

For someone whose "politics are very far on the left" and who hates the NRA with a "passion" you sure spout the party line.

Lightbreather · Unread post by **Lightbreather** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 4:13 am

Vigilant wrote:Lots of background checks, liceneed dealers and 15 day bread waiting periods on your planet?

Just out of curiosity, what percentage of guns sold in the U.S. spends 15 days waiting to be united with their new owners? And what percentage spends less than one day?