Talk:Universal background check

Inaccurate statistic

I don't think this is correct:

A 2012 study published in the journal Injury Prevention found that nearly 80% of all firearms used for criminal purposes are obtained through transfers from unlicensed dealers, which are not required to conduct background checks in a majority of states due to the private sale exemption.[22]

Looking at the source, it makes no such claim. Can anyone explain how anything in the article adds up to 80%? If not, it should be removed or replaced with an accurate number. Random username 0001 (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Is this the source to which you are referring? I found another RS that seems to follow this narrative. Are you having trouble understanding the context? It is a bit academic in nature, but the math seems right. DN (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The source you listed actually says the opposite:"More Than 80 Percent of Guns Used in Mass Shootings Obtained Legally", while the Wikipedia article says that 80% were obtained from unlicensed dealers. And yes, the first source you linked is the one I was referring to. But reading through the article, it doesn't mention 80% anywhere, and the data itself, I don't see anything that adds up to 80% unlicensed sales. I don't know why the Wikipedia entry claims it says that. If there's an analysis someone has done of the study that shows were the 80% claim is from, I can't find it. The source is there, but the source doesn't seem to say what the entry claims it does. Random username 0001 (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

While it is referring to mass shootings, I don't see how it says the "opposite"? ...The study in question is also cited by this, a 2019 DOJ report..."Among prisoners who possessed a gun during their offense, 90% did not obtain it from a retail source"....The study cites this journal and this book...it's not explicit but it's also backed up by other RS...Maybe try Wikipedia:RSN and see what they say? DN (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Contradiction

The article states that upwards of 80/90%+ of voters in the US support UBCs, but goes on to mention the initiatives in WA and ME (two blue states) that indicated support of about 60% and 48%, respectively. Shouldn't this discrepancy be mentioned? — THORNFIELD HALL ^(Talk) 09:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

States with universal background check laws

The "Universal background check" section is sourced almost entirely to the Giffords Law Center. That is a gun control advocacy organization. Advocacy organizations should not be cited for summary factual information. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: Although the Giffords Law Center is a pro-gun-control group, their factual information about gun laws is generally quite detailed and reliable. Similarly, the NRA-ILA is a pro-gun-rights group, and their information is also detailed and reliable. What I recommend is using both of those as sources -- they should generally agree. Secondary sources like those are generally preferable to primary sources such as quoting the actual laws. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess you're right. I just looked for guidelines on the matter and this time I found WP:BIASEDSOURCES and WP:ALLOWEDBIAS. Those do not preclude referencing biased/advocacy sources. My previous impression was that such sources should be treated as WP:NEWSOPED, which is different. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I thought I had seen guidelines or policies to that effect. Thanks for finding those. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources to review

NLM 2022 DN (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2026 (UTC)