Talk:Tulare County shootings

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gun control[edit]

I have searched for, and failed to find, political agitation for control on sales of guns in the wake of this spree shooting. Posting this here in the hope that some other editor can find such.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath, SB54 and the POV template[edit]

The aftermath section takes a pretty hard anti-SB54 POV, and there is another side that should be at least mentioned. The Trump justice department challenged SB54, lost on appeal, and the Supreme Court declined to take the case. SB54 has benefits and is supported by some law enforcement officials. The section reads as if there is universal condemnation, and that's just not true. Rklahn (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

rklahn. Would it be fair to say that some law enforcement officials spoke up on behalf of SB54 specifically related to this situation? Or rather are you referencing the fact that some law enforcement officials are on record in general in support of SB54? If you can find news links with law enforcement officials quoted around the aftermath of this situation where they speak up in favor of SB54, I'd be happy to work on a couple of sentences adding that information here. It is possible though that WP:Coatrack is a problem here with this section in general.Novellasyes (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added. California Senate Bill 54 (2017)#political impact seems like the best place to bat around the political aftermath of the shooting, getting in multiple perspectives. Novellasyes (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There may be something to the idea that this is WP:Coatrack is the problem here. But I'm going to ignore that for the moment. The actual aftermath as it relates to SB54 is pretty much nothing. The sheriff spoke out against it. The Trump administration challenged it but lost. A shooting victim's brother attended the State of the Union, yet the law still stands in full force. So, TBH, if the article did not have the aftermath section, the article would be just fine, with its other references to SB54. Rklahn (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of removing the aftermath section. Novellasyes (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a concensus. I'm going to remove the section. Rklahn (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]