Jump to content

Talk:Concealed carry in the United States

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Neutrality (talk | contribs) at 00:06, 27 January 2024 (→‎Challenged lead edits - Ohio cities content: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

First image

I'd like to remove File:Right to Carry, timeline.gif from the page. It is the first image to appear in the article and it presents only a very recent history of carry laws in the USA, and contributes to the article's alarmist POV and tone. It is included in History of concealed carry in the U.S., which is linked here anyway. The graphic right below it is an up-to-date map. I'm not trying to obscure this information, but the way it's presented here borders on FUD (especially when CCW is framed as a public health issue) and readers can see it in the history article if they're interested in the history. AP295 (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Going once, going twice... AP295 (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it. It is purely informational. There's nothing alarmist about it.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Using well-established news outlets as references

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I am withdrawing the question and closing the Request for Comment. In hindsight, this question is too general for an RfC. A better question would be much more specific. Perhaps something like this: "For this statement: "According to a 2017 study in the American Journal of Public Health, four out of five people who carried a concealed handgun said that personal protection was the primary reason they did so." -- is this article in the Washington Post an appropriate reference? — Mudwater (Talk) 14:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For this article, is it appropriate to use large, well-established news outlets -- for example, the Washington Post -- as references? — Mudwater (Talk) 22:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, it is appropriate to use well-established news organizations -- the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Associated Press, CNN, and so on -- as references. As it says at WP:NEWSORG, "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact." Furthermore, such secondary sources are often preferable to primary sources like an article in a scholarly journal. As it says at WP:PSTS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Another thing: Using well-established news outlets as references can be even more appropriate if the WP article explicitly refers to the source, though doing so is usually not necessary. For example:

    "A 2017 article in the Washington Post stated, "Roughly 3 million Americans carry loaded handguns with them every day, primarily for protection, according to a new analysis of a national survey of gun owners published in the American Journal of Public Health.... Four out of 5 of them said that personal protection was the primary reason they carried a loaded handgun."[1]

References

  1. ^ Ingraham, Christopher (October 19, 2017). "3 Million Americans Carry Loaded Handguns with Them Every Single Day, Study Finds". Washington Post. Retrieved December 12, 2020.

— Mudwater (Talk) 22:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not that particular washington post article, for reasons that have already been discussed on this talk page. As I've pointed out before, that particular article misrepresents the result of a journal paper: "Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a State-Level Synthetic Controls Analysis". The following italicized text is a paragraph from that washington post article: " But more recent crime research has come to a very different conclusion. This year, for instance, a comprehensive analysis of decades of crime data found that states that made it easier to obtain concealed-carry permits saw a 10 percent to 15 percent increase in violent crime in the decade following the change. " . This text is hyperlinked to https://www.nber.org/papers/w23510, which is a page dedicated the paper "Right-to-Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a State-Level Synthetic Controls Analysis" by Donohue, Aneja and Weber. They did not find that "states that made it easier to obtain concealed-carry permits saw a 10-15% increase in violent crime." Crime continued to decrease in most of those states, but their model predicted it would have decreased further had those laws not been introduced. This is very different from saying that violent crime increased 10-15% in the decade after the introduction of shall-issue. Furthermore, I was unable to find the survey they mentioned from the American Journal of Public Health. They do not cite this source in any conspicuous way. Considering this, editors should not be obligated to cite "well-established" news organizations if the information can be sourced directly from academic and peer-reviewed literature, especially if the article is of low quality or contains serious factual errors that have the potential to grossly misinform the reader. AP295 (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AP295: That part of the Washington Post article, about what the study said about the effects on violent crime, may or may not be inaccurate. But I wasn't using it to reference that, I was using it to reference why people said they carried concealed -- for self-defense -- and also how many people carry concealed, as of 2017. Furthermore, it seemed to me that in the previous discussion, in the #Intro section above, you were objecting in general to using the Washington Post as a reference. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your propaganda is clumsy. AP295 (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AP395 - Here's another rigid policy for you to absorb - WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. HiLo48 (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You and him can do all the wikilawyering you want but the WaPo article is still wrong and we still haven't identified the survey they're talking about from the American journal of public health. If we can find it somewhere on that page, Mudwater already agreed it would be fine to cite the journal, and since the WaPo article also contains serious factual errors about another paper we should not cite the WaPo article. Otherwise the claim can't be verified from the original source and we should not cite the WaPo article. It seems pretty cut and dry to me. AP295 (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-neutral RFC - This RFC seems to be aimed at making a point. It should probably be removed. Also no source is inherently reliable. It all depends on context. The proper venue for this dispute is RSP. PackMecEng (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NickCT: Sorry, but it's not obvious to me. Can you please explain why it's non-neutral? And also, can you suggest a more neutral way of phrasing the RfC? @PackMecEng: too, in case you have additional input on these questions. — Mudwater (Talk) 19:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Want them to explain why the sky is blue while you've got them here? AP295 (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mudwater: Basically it does not follow WP:RFCNEUTRAL. The question posed here can be summed up as "Should RS be used" which is a leading question. From what I gather the question should be more a long the lines of "Should this specific article X be used for specific statement Y" or something to that effect. As it stands, a general question about the reliability of a source does not belong in a RFC on this page. Rather something like that should be asked at RSN. But again the first thing they will ask you there is probably what do you plan on using the source for and what is the specific article. PackMecEng (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested earlier that the intro should contain a line explaining why CCW is typically practiced (often for personal defense). Mudwater suggested the WaPo citation, but the WaPo article was of very low quality and contained misleading information, so I don't think it should be cited. If anything, the original journal paper should be cited but I don't think anyone can really dispute (that is, argue for the idea) that personal defense is an uncommon reason for someone to obtain a permit or practice CCW lawfully. I'll probably just add it without a citation but I'm sure it'll be an uphill battle. AP295 (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AP295: Respectfully, the point is the Washington Post is de-facto a reliable source. All newspapers may occasionally, or even frequently, post erroneous or factually incorrect information. They remain de facto citable reliable sources. Additionally, your making a judgment call as to how The Post purportedly mis-represents a study almost qualifies as Original Research on your part. KJS ml343x (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can't be serious. AP295 (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you what, I'm going to remove that WaPo citation if it ever gets added again. If you want to run me up against 3RR and write me up at WP:ANI then go ahead and see how that works out. I'm sure they'll appreciate this ridiculous waste of time about as much as I do. AP295 (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Invalid RfC. Our policies and guidelines apply across all of Wikipedia, and cannot be altered for specific articles. Among these is the general rule that context matters, i.e. reliability depends on the specific source (in this case, the specific newspaper article) as well the specific statement being made. I'd fear that any outcome of this RfC other than "invalid RfC" would likely be misused to violate that principle. A more appropriate and useful way to frame this RfC would be: should we use source X to support content Y? R2 (bleep) 20:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also believe it's invalid, but do you see the catch 22 here? Some editors claim WaPo should be cited because they're a "trusted" secondary source. The WaPo article contains statements that were incorrect and contrary to the information in the source they cited. When I pointed it out, I'm accused of "original research". If I'm not entitled to point this out, WaPo remains a "trusted" source. I see no reason why WaPo or any news agency are more objective or better qualified to interpret specialized academic work than anyone else. AP295 (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Invalid RfC and I fear we've lost sight that this is an encyclopedia. The RFC statement is not neutral as required. "Should source X be used to cite Y" is for WP:RSN not RFC. It's pretty ridiculous to have an RFC about a WaPo article about a study in order to "prove" that concealed carry is used for personal self defense. This is quite a bit like citing a newspaper weather report to prove the sky is blue. I mean... this is an encyclopedia, and is everyone who edits this article aware that there is scholarship about guns in America, including concealed carry? There are entire books about this, by university publishers, like The Gun Debate: What Everyone Needs to Know written by Philip J. Cook and Kristin Goss and published by Oxford University Press, which has chapters about concealed carry and self defense, or Good Guys with Guns: The Appeal and Consequences of Concealed Carry by Angela Stroud, published by University of North Carolina Press, neither of which are cited in the article. There are law review articles on this exact question like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], and thousands of other academic sources appear on a Google Scholar search. Editors should not edit an article with an idea in mind, and then find sources to back that idea up, and then argue about whether those sources are reliable or not. That's backwards editing; WP:RGW editing. Editors should come to an article with sources in hand, and then summarize those sources. That's forwards editing; that's building an encyclopedia. Levivich harass/hound 00:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another change to lead

I'd like to change this sentence: All 50 states have passed laws allowing individuals to carry certain concealed firearms in public, either without a permit or after obtaining a permit from a designated government authority at the state and/or local level; however, there are still many states that, though they have passed concealed carry permit laws, do not issue permits or make it extremely difficult to obtain one.

to this:

It is illegal in many states to carry or possess a handgun without first obtaining a permit from a designated government authority at the state and/or local level. Permits may be difficult to obtain in some areas.

I know very little about law, but as I understand the latter is more accurate. I'd like a second opinion. AP295 (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Since nobody seems to object, I made the edit. Laws prohibit or constrain behaviors and actions. Let's not sugarcoat gun control by speaking in terms of what is "allowed" to us by some unnamed, high-and-mighty benefactor. AP295 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to remove Maryland from the discussion as a “no-issue jurisdiction in practice".

As of Summer 2021, it is not yet clear that Maryland is a “no-issue jurisdiction in practice", like Hawaii and New Jersey.

First, there is a significantly higher percentage of Maryland permit holders (0.47%) vs. Hawaii permit holders (0.02%) or New Jersey permit holders (0.01%). https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/md-gun-laws/; https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/hi-gun-laws/; https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/nj-gun-laws/

Second, there is evidence that the Maryland state police permit denial rate was not at the “no-issue in practice” level. (“In 2018, the state police received about 4,400 new applications and 5,400 renewal applications last year — and denied about 500 of those applications.”). https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/bs-md-handgun-board-20190308-story.html

Third, until the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board was dissolved by the legislature in 2020, the Handgun Permit Review Board had “a rate of overturning or modifying state police decisions 83 percent of the time.” https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/bs-md-handgun-board-20190308-story.html

With the dissolution of the Handgun Permit Review Board, it may be that Maryland is trending or could become a “no-issue” jurisdiction. But, there is not yet sufficient evidence that it should be placed as a "no-issue jurisdiction in practice" in the same category as Hawaii or New Jersey at this time.LonghornBob (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CCW Reciprocity

I think this chart need to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem (talk • contribs) 04:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find the older version of the Reciprocity map? The one where it shows the differences in the counties of some states? I can't find it on the older versions of the article. Thanks in advance. Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.89.81 (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should NY be in yellow again?

New York's new concealed carry ban comes into effect midnight. Besides banning carry virtually everywhere, it includes a new "good moral character" requirement and a subjective social media check. It is not accurate to call this shall issue and until New York inevitably loses in court and these requirements are removed we should not pretend New York is a shall-issue state. The map should be updated to reflect this. 2600:6C67:8700:9400:7A9C:27A3:F257:9B67 (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Challenged lead edits - Ohio cities content

I have challenged, and reverted, additions to the lead section from UnregisteredSkeptic. I explained in my edit summary:

  • This new content is undue weight. It consists of local news reporting, and press releases from the Ohio AG, about a (June 2021 to June 2023) study about violent crime in eight Ohio cities.
  • This content is a correlational study that covers a very short period: 1 year before an Ohio law was enacted, and 1 year after enactment. It is not a long-term study, and it is not peer-reviewed.
  • This kind of study is in no way equivalent to meta-analyses, or syntheses papers (such as the National Academy of Sciences). It not only doesn't belong in the lead section, but it doesn't belong in the article at all.

Neutralitytalk 00:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States&oldid=1199399774"