Talk:Should civilians be prohibited from owning firearms?

Non-neutral wording

The wording of this debate is non-neutral. It should read "should civilians be prohibited from owning firearms". It's somewhat Orwellian to speak about what we're "allowed" to do or what is "made available" to us. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 23:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I changed the wording within the page, but the title of the page itself is still as it was. Any objections to moving the page so it can be renamed? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 01:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

External links

I'm inclined to remove the links to rationalwiki. Does anyone oppose? When media uses terms like "Rational", "Intelligent, "Neutral" and so forth in such a context, it's arguably an instance of question begging and/or an appeal to the reader's ego. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 16:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I removed them. If anything, the resource should link wikipedia's gun and gun control pages, not rationalwiki's. I don't like removing content in general but rationalwiki is insufferable. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 21:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: Come on now. I don't believe for a moment that you consider rationalwiki a worthwhile addition to the debate. Wikipedia has articles for those same topics. They're not entirely objective but they're a thousand times better than any of the partisan sophistry you'd find on rationalwiki. In the first place, isn't it rather presumptuous to call a website "rationalwiki"? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 09:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do. If editors can agree that RationalWiki has some deficiencies, e.g. known bias, we can add a warning note.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gun_control is relevant since it contains a pro-con section. Pointing readers to other places that contain pros and cons is some of the best uses of External links in a wikidebate. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It's so bad... AP295 (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)