Talk:Universal background check/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Suggested Citations

Let's take a look at these and decided which ones are are WP:Notable. Darknipples (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  1. Miniter, Frank (1999). "Columbine Survivor Evan Todd Speaks Out!". NRA Publications. National Rifle Association. [Todd] asks, "[I]s a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration?
  2. "Closing the Gun Show Loophole". Violence Policy Center. 2000. To most effectively implement a universal background check on all sales at gun shows, access to the NICS should be only through established means.
  3. Johnson, Kevin (January 14, 2013). "Bloomberg calls for universal background checks". USA Today.
  4. Dutton, Sarah (January 17, 2013). "9 in 10 back universal gun background checks". CBS Interactive.
  5. Maass, Harold (March 22, 2013). "Gun control: Why the fight over universal background checks is the key". The Week.
  6. "Should Congress Support Universal Background Checks for Gun Purchases?". US News & World report. April 9, 2013.
  7. NRA Institute for Legislative Action (August 15, 2013). "Do "Universal" Background Checks Reduce Murder Rates?". nraila.org.
  8. Farago, Robert (October 4, 2013). "Universal Background Checks for Dummies". The Truth About Guns. Robert Farago.
  9. American Academy of Pediatrics (December 2013). "Universal Background Checks for Gun Purchases" (PDF). aap.org.
  10. Bell, Peter (December 6, 2013). "Poll: Majority of Republican Men Support Universal Background Checks on Gun Sales". National Journal.
  11. Webster, Daniel (June 25, 2014). "Guns Kill People. And If We Had Universal Background Checks, They Wouldn't Kill So Many". The New Republic.
  12. Lillis, Mike (July 3, 2014). "Poll: 92 percent of gun owners support universal background checks". The Hill.
  13. O'Brien, Colleen (August 19, 2014). "Dueling gun initiatives seek opposite outcomes on universal background checks". MYNorthwest.com. Seattle, Washington: Bonneville International.
  14. Editorial board (October 28, 2014). "Editorial: A new pitch for universal background checks for gun sales". Tampa Bay Times. St. Petersburg, Florida.
  15. Cook, Philip J.; Goss, Kristin A. (2014). The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University.
  16. NRA Institute for Legislative Action (2015). "Private Sales Restrictions and Gun Registration". gunbanfacts.com. NRA Institute for Legislative Action.
  17. Barnard, Jeff (January 24, 2015). "Oregon focus of effort to expand background checks for guns". Seattle Times. Associated Press.
  18. Cook, Cole, and Molliconi (Fall 1995) Regulating gun markets Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (pages 89-90)

Original Research

There seems to be a lot of material in this article ref'd to primary sources, material that is original research. Since this was split off from another article perhaps the first article has/had RS refs that should be added. Absent that, material from or ref'd directly to government archives is problematic. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I see a wide array of sources: 18 sources from government, journals, newspapers, advocacy groups. What primary sources are you referring to? Lightbreather (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Could you be more specific @Capitalismojo:? Darknipples (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Government sources are primary sources. To begin: There is absolutely no reason to rely on the ATF And GAO refs in the first paragraph. This primary source material is not necessary in such a policy article. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo: Thank you for clarifying for me. Do you mean to say that the US government (for lack of a better word) created the term? Where is the citation for this? Darknipples (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No. I didn't mean to suggest that at all. What I am suggesting is that we carefully add RS refs rather than primary source material that this article relies upon too much. Policy warns about using primary source material. Sometimes it is neccesary. For an article in an active policy discussion area, it is not. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Background Section

Which citations in this section specifically mention UBC? I think the focus here is too much on GSL instead of when UBC first came to light. Darknipples (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Upon first glance I did not see the UBC term mentioned in any of these articles, although some of them are quite lengthy. Could we consider removing this content from the article until WP:Notability is determined? Keeping WP:Balance in mind, of course. Darknipples (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I would note again that we have multiple refs that are WP:PRIMARY source. These Gov't docs and transcripts are to be avoided. Original research is to be avoided. Let newspapers and other media outlets analyze the primary source material, we should be relying on reliable secondary source, per policy. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Darknipples, I agree that the Background section needs some work. I will work on that today, most likely. Lightbreather (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@Lightbreather: Let's look at the first paragraph from the background section in this article for the reasons stated above. It is eerily similar to the the one on GSL, which might help explain why there was a requested merge. I haven't figured out it's explicit relevance to UBC, although I understand the implied etymology. It seems too WP:SYNTH.
Give me 30 minutes, DN! ;-) I'm working on it right now! Lightbreather (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"...is a term..."`

Saying that something "is a term" is meaningless verbiage. Everything is a "term".

  • "Rifle is a term used to refer to long guns."
  • "Bullet is a term used to refer to projectiles in firearms."
  • "Stupid is a term used to refer to certain editing decisions on Wikipedia."

Let's cut the crap and write about the topic, not the term used to refer to the topic. Felsic (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That is how I'd prefer to handle these topics. Lightbreather (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
No surprise that this got another kneejerk revert without any discussion. Anyone got a source saying it's a "term" instead of a 'proposal"? Didn't think so. Felsic (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 29 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Mostly oppose !votes, giving valid reasons. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Universal background check → Universal background check for firearms sales in the United States – the current title fails WP:PRECISE, since universal background checks are not restricted to gun sales, and are not restricted to the United States either. The title fails to specify the topic of the article clearly enough to identify the topic. Some occupations require background checks universally, for instance. Japan requires background checks universally for firearms sales. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support at first sight, far more intelligible and needs US in title. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I have changed[1] the article hatnote to point to the Background check article. Until or unless there are more articles about "universal" checks (I couldn't find any), there is no need to change this one. When there are more articles about "universal" checks, we should probably create a disambiguation page. If some googles "universal background check" the result is thousands of articles about U.S. gun laws. Every time there is a mass shooting, the world talk about it. I know WP comes across as U.S. centric to many, but when it comes to gun violence, the U.S. stands out like a sore thumb. In other words, it's NOTABLE. --Lightbreather (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. These are two fundamentally different political concepts. Darknipples (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose. This is just unnecessary. When there are other proposals for universal background checks then maybe we should add "United State". Anyone who thinks this is needed now oughta make proposals to move about ten thousand articles with the same "problem". Felsic (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Though the title is not universally recognizable, usage does point to this specific topic [2]. Zarcadia (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Notice This proposal is inconsistent with the similar RM to move Gun show loophole to Background checks for firearm sales in the United States (note "firearms" vs. "firearm").  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Darknipples, and per WP:PRECISE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE. The current title is not regularly confusable with anything else, or at least we have no sources suggesting this. While it could conceivably refer to something else in some cases, this particular phrase almost almost refers to US firearm policy, and to a specific aspect of it. Even if it did regularly refer to something else, this would still be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It's also the WP:COMMONNAME.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The right name should be "Universal background checks". Wikipedia may like singular nouns, but there ain't any way to say that a requirement for a background check can be universal. It's gotta be plural. There's no such thing as a "universal background check". Just like you can't have one "scissor". Felsic (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gun show loophole in scare quotes is POV

Regarding this edit,[3] putting gun show loophole in scare quote, with the edit summary, there is not really a loophole; hence, there is a need for quotes.

This article does not say that there is no loophole. More importantly, the Gun show loophole article does not say there is no loophole. It says, Gun rights advocates say that there is no loophole. Therefore, to put the words gun show loophole in scare quotes in this article gives undue weight to gun rights advocates' POV. If the reader wants to know about the gun show loophole, they can click through to that article.

I am removing the scare quotes, which were not in the original,[4] which came over from this version[5] of the NICS article. Lightbreather (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Sources from 2012 forward:


--Lightbreather (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Sources from 2012 forward:


--Lightbreather (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Sources from 2012 forward:


--Lightbreather (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Get ready for GA nominaton

This page hasn't been active for a while it seems, at least since LB was retired. I am looking for anyone still actively checking this talk page to help decide how best to integrate from the redirect at GSL [6]. Darknipples (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Cites

(page 28) [7] July 30 2015

Redirect

Godsy, this edit [8], seems a bit overreaching, not to mention, overkill. Which citations state UBC is also referred to as PSL or GSL? Wouldn't a "See Also" section be more appropriate according to WP:MOS? Darknipples (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Darknipples: "Private sale loophole" is a synonym for "Gun show loophole". Private sale loophole redirects here, and an entire section titled that currently resides here; what are currently references 15, 16, and 17 (17 is bundled) are sources about the term. Whether or not the information should reside here, or the term should redirect here is another matter - since at this time they do: The {{redirect}} hat note per WP:DABLINKS, part of WP:DISAMBIGUATION, is appropriate. MOS:SEEALSO has a different purpose, which is not handling when the primary topic redirects to another page, which is the case in this instance.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 15:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed with Godsy; if we are going to have PSL redirect here then we need to explain why. Personally I think it should redirect to GSL, but until then the redirect should be explained. Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Effects of background checks on private sales

This content seems eerily familiar to what was put on GSL [9]. This appears to be more of an endorsement for John Lott, a noted pro-gun activist, than anything. I wonder if it would hold up at RSN. What do you think Gaijin42? Darknipples (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't even appear to be a legitimate source [10] for "The only peer-reviewed study on background checks for the private transfers of guns that looked at data for all the states that have passed these laws has been done in various editions of John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" (3rd edition, 2010)." Darknipples (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like WP:COPYPASTE... From the citation..."In New York, today’s background checks add about $80 to the cost of transferring a gun. In Washington State, they add about $60. In Washington, D.C., they add $200. In effect, these laws put a tax on guns and can prevent less affluent Americans from purchasing them. This disproportionately affects poor minorities who live in high-crime urban areas"

From the article..."In New York, today’s background checks add about $80 to the cost of transferring a gun. In Washington State, they add about $60. In Washington, D.C., they add $200. In effect, these laws put a tax on guns and can prevent less affluent Americans from purchasing them. This disproportionately affects poor minorities who live in high-crime urban areas." Darknipples (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed same illegitimate source used for this- "His book also argued that states that adopted the gun show regulations saw a 20 percentage point drop in the number of gun shows in the state." [11] Darknipples (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Darknipples Btw, your fixed ping up above didn't work. To ping someone you have to put in the ping, and a signature, in the same edit. What is your objection to the source? The book itself? Or that it is linked via amazon? If its the book itself, thats going to be a tough argument, as he is a recognized (if controversial) expert in the topic. Depending on the statement we may need to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV it, but here it is clearly identified as the outcome of his research and his argument. If your objection is due to the amazon link, certainly a better link would be well, better. But remember, that WP:Offline sources are perfectly acceptable. Nothing more than the name of the book is really required as a valid citation. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Gaijin42 I asked if you'd like to RSN the source, please feel free to do so if you object. Or, I will kindly do it for you, if you care to ask. Darknipples (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Article image BRD

I've suggested this image be used for the Gun show loophole article, mainly to those that oppose the current GSL article image. Current activity on that article seems to have been reduced to minor vandalism and little discussion. The UBC article still needs a lot of work, but IMO, this image represents a clear and direct relationship to the article, and should be discussed at this point in time. Darknipples (talk) 07:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Desert Eagle 44 mag. private sale 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Universal_background_check/Archive_1&oldid=1089892469"