Talk:Concealed carry in the United States

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Concealed carry in the United States article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 3 months

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Concealed carry in the United States was copied or moved into Weapon possession with this edit on 20:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms 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.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

United States

	United States portal 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1, Archive 2

Article merged: See old talk-pages:

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

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]

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 an observational 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 does not purport to assess causation.
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.

Neutrality^talk 00:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to the Wikipedia guidelines stating that local reporting, press releases, and observational studies cannot be cited as factual data and research when editing pages. UnregisteredSkeptic (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I explained a moment ago on your user talk page, but I'll summarize here for others' benefit. Of course, no policy says these sources are "banned" or "cannot be cited." The relevant policy is that "not all verifiable information must be included" (i.e., WP:VNOT) and that we include content only in proportion to its importance and representation within the universe of reliable sources (a policy we call WP:WEIGHT). Even if a piece of information, or some source, is correct and factual - that doesn't guarantee inclusion. There are differences in significance and strength of source material, or how meaningful it is compared to the body of other evidence. For example: blog posts and not the same as university press-published books; press releases are not the same as journalistic accounts; meta-analyses are not the same as short-term studies; on a broad topic, an academic journal article dealing with a long period of time nationwide is better than a think tank article on a narrow topic. Sometimes a point might be appropriate for a long mention, a short mention, or no mention at all. Here, the content is in the latter category -- for reasons I explained above. Neutrality^talk 00:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]