Talk:Carolyn McCarthy

H.R. 1022

Get crackin' Wikipedians. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 07:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism - 25 Feb. 2007

Cut it out. --Cyningaenglisc 02:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Gun safety

It is clearly NPOV to describe what McCarthy does in the exact terms that she herself uses in the bills she submits and in her official speeches. She is a gun safety advocate; people who disagree with her call her a gun control advocate. In other Wiki articles on controversial topics, the terms that are used are the ones that are used by the participants. In the article on abortion, it would be POV to use the term "anti-choice" to describe those who want to outlaw abortion (even though that's what their opponents call them); they refer to themselves (and, rightly so, Wiki refers to them this way as well) as "pro-life." The same argument holds for the reverse, with the terms "anti-life" or "pro-death" and "pro-choice." McCarthy is a gun safety advocate, and if you don't like it, and you change the Wiki article, you're introducing your own POV into the article, which is wrong.Info999 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You can put lipstick on a pig and call it Hillary but it is still a pig. McCarthy's signature issue then, and again now, is a total ban on entire classes of firearms. She can call it gun safety, but that's just plain spin--POV. A ban IS gun control. There's no rational debate possible on that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.134.176.99 (talk • contribs) 15:48, March 23, 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if you signed your comments we would be able to direct our responses to someone, but in any case - to so quickly give up on the idea of "rational debate" is sad, and is not the way to make a point. You are making a point of view statement that any attempt to limit the kinds of weapons sold in the United States is "gun control"; while you're free to hold that opinion (and it is opinion, not fact), you're not free to inject it into a wiki article. It doesn't matter what you think of the issue - what matters are the facts. And the facts are that Carolyn McCarthy is a strong and vocal advocate of gun safety; that's what she claims to be, and has demonstrated herself to be, and that's what belongs in the wiki article. If someone were to change the Wayne LaPierre wiki article from saying that he is a "prominent gun rights advocate" to a "right-wing gun-nut violence-monger", it would be a point of view, and improper here; likewise, inserting your view of what Congresswoman McCarthy does also doesn't belong.Info999 02:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Really hard to say that the bills she supports concern "gun safety". Several of them call for the outright banning of whole classes of firearms. Others do nothing to enhance "safety" but only put up more obstacles to law-abiding citizens. "Gun safety" is a word that people use as a code word to hide the fact that they support banning guns, it is a Politically Correct word and violates NPOV.--Davidwiz 02:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Davidwiz: this has been debated and settled. It is not NPOV since that is the phrase that she actually uses. If you were to say, "no, it's not cool to call it gun safety" (since you don't agree with her), and try to call it gun control then you would be injecting your own POV into the article, which is not allowed. You can be upset with her if you want for using the phrase, but she does, and so do the millions and millions of like-minded citizens who agree with her. See directly above for more information on why it's inappropriate to change this to gun control - why that would be what violates NPOV.Info999 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Who "debated" and "settled" it? You? All there is is a Wiki article here that looks like it was written by her campaign. This whole article should be tagged for NPOV violation.--Davidwiz 17:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a moment to read the above and the history, and you'll see that it's settled. You have no more right to call what she does whatever you think than I have of calling you a frothing at the mouth violence-crazed gun fanatic...oh, I mean "firearms enthusiast." If you were a Member of Congress, and that's the term you use, we'd have to use it in your wiki article; if we said "but what he really wants is to arm every citizen and have gun battles in the streets" then we would be, sadly, injecting POV into the article - exactly what you, sadly, are doing here. She isn't the first, nor will she be the last, public advocate who uses the years-old term "gun safety." It's what she is. Wiki is no place for you to vent your hatred of people you don't understand and whose shoes you've never walked in - and hopefully never will, from what she's been through.Info999 18:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Why are you even trying to debate this? She's a gun control advocate, not a gun safety advocate. There's a huge difference. It has nothing to do with an opinion or a viewpoint, it has more to do with fact. Are you going to go and edit the gun safety Wiki page to read more like the gun control page next? M855GT 07:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP doesn't require the article to reflect only the subject's self-descriptions. Although the article may make note of that description, the article should use standard nomenclature. Using your example, if someone describes themselves as "anti-choice," then the article would still use the term "pro-life." There are many gun advocates who are proud to call themselves "gun nuts" but it would be unencyclopedic to only refer to them as such.

Gun safety, which the article wikilinks to, describes how to safely use a gun not any ban or control of guns. The article Gun Politics uses the term "gun control" liberally.

I don't believe that the term "gun control" has such negative connotations -- you appear to equate its negative use to "right-wing gun-nut violence-monger." The term is used as a standard term in news articles and journals.  ∴ Therefore  talk   05:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the term "gun safety" on her official web site. Where does she refer to her stands as "gun safety" vs., say, "prevention of gun violence?" The link "On the issues" [1] which is from this article, uses the term "gun control." I'm really at a loss to understand the controversy on the use of this term.  ∴ Therefore  talk   07:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

To Info999 -- please don't revert "gun control" without first discussing the matter here. You state that there is consensus but I only see your voice arguing for "gun safety" -- unless there are archived discussions that I don't see here on the page. Here are several New York Time's articles that reference both Carol McCarthy and "gun control" (there are 97 -- they don't use the term "gun safety" as "gun control" is standard): [2] [3] [4] The latter link includes this quote:

Yesterday Mr. Bloomberg's new deputy mayor for government relations, Kevin Sheekey, was spotted at City Hall with Representative Carolyn McCarthy of Long Island, for whom gun control is a signature issue.

When searching for McCarthy and "gun safety," you find legislation for requiring gun locks, a bone fide gun safety issue. There is no POV in using the normal nomenclature that all newspapers and encyclopedias use even if McCarthy would prefer a different description. SmallRepair 04:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Liberal" backing and "heavy Newsday support"

When you can cite your claim, you are more than welcome to add it to this article. Until then, please stop your unhelpful and clearly POV-laden reverts. Info999 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess some people aren't able to tell the difference between a "political endorsement" and "heavy support from Newsday editorial page." In her first race for Congress, McCarthy got the former, but certainly not the latter, as is proven directly below.Info999

Ana: as for your claim of McCarthy getting "heavy support from Newsday editorial page", I went back and read everything Newsday said about McCarthy from May 1, 1996 through the election in November. She appeared on the Editorial page only the following times: October 24, 1996 - "NEWSDAY ENDORSES / 4th CD: Party Loyalist vs. Commonsense Newcomer"; October 28, 1996 - "THE NEWSDAY INTERVIEW WITH DAN FRISA / `I Have Very Positive Leadership Qualities'" (mentioned during the interview with the incumbent); October 29, 1996 - "THE NEWSDAY INTERVIEW WITH CAROLYN McCARTHY / `I Felt I Could Do a Better Job' in Congress"; November 4, 1996 (the day before the election, a brief list of all Newsday endorsements) - "NEWSDAY ENDORSES / The Poll That Counts / Here are the candidates and propositions Newsday backs at the polls tomorrow."; and November 5, 1996 (the day of the election, an even more brief list of all Newsday endorsements) - "It's Election Day; Here Are Newsday's Choices."

The only other times that McCarthy appears on the Newsday Editorial page are within three columns by Larry Levy, and three columns by Marie Cocco. The Levy colums: one about Clinton's coattails, on September 11, 1996 - "Clinton's Coattails Won't Help LI Dems"; one centered on her and Frisa, on October 30, 1996 - "A McCarthy Win Might Be Good for GOP"; and one where she is mentioned in passing, on November 1, 1996 - "LI Republicans Will Survive the Dole Debacle." The Cocco columns: May 30, 1996 - "McCarthy vs. Frisa: Playing for the Home Crowd"; October 3, 1996 - "The Cry Around Nassau: Anyone Seen Danny?" (which is actually a column about Frisa conducting a second "stealth" campaign, not about or endorsing McCarthy); and October 10, 1996 - "LI Women Run for Congress in 2 Different Worlds" about the differences between McCarthy and Bredes, a Suffolk Congressional candidate.

So, one single Editorial page endorsement (the fact of which was printed two more times), one interview (two if you count Frisa's), and six columns that feature McCarthy, to one degree or another (which are Op-Eds, not Newsday Editorials, but, being intellectually honest, I include them, even though the don't fall under your categorization of "News editorial page"). That's it. That hardly qualifies as "heavy support from Newsday editorial page." I think it's clear that this is something that is your POV, you cannot source, and so should not be put back in the wiki article.

Too often, people make these kinds of broad, biased, and ultimately untrue claims on wiki, and they contribute to the growing - many of them fair - criticisms of this site.Info999 02:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Barrel shrouds

The article should probably include something about the barrel shroud snafu: http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/18/video-carolyn-mccarthy-doesnt-understand-her-own-gun-control-legislation/ --NeuronExMachina 00:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Find a more reliable source first.  ∴ Therefore  talk   00:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• The reliable source is a video on YouTube from MSNBC's Tucker show in the external links, that someone keeps removing. *McCarthy interview on MSNBC's Tucker Show M855GT 01:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and re-add it. The 2nd time, I mistakenly deleted it. The first time, a bot deleted it. I suspect because youtube links are considered copy vios.  ∴ Therefore  talk   01:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

McCarthy interview on MSNBC's Tucker Show

I don't think YouTube videos are allowed in this case, because it would be considered a copyright violation, so we can't link to it. Natalie 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I've seen links to plenty of YouTube videos on Wikipedia. Unless something has changed recently... How would it be a copyright violation anyway, it's a link, not something actually used on this site. M855GT 19:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking, which specifically mentions that we cannot link to something we know is violating copyright. And just because you've seen links to YouTube on Wikipedia doesn't mean they're supposed to be there - I've seen whole pages replaced with "PENIS!!!!!!", but that doesn't mean it's right. Natalie 19:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but I didn't KNOW it was violating copyright. There are plenty of videos on YouTube that are condoned by the network they came from. CBS has a relationship with them for one example. M855GT 19:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, no one is sanctioning you - it's an honest mistake. I don't know how we would go about verifying if the copyright holder approved of posting the video though. Natalie 19:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sections

Why don't more of these articles have sections? Howard Cleeves 06:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Barrel shrouds redux

Threeringcurious changed the barrel shrouds paragraph from:

She responded that more importantly the legislation would ban "large capacity" magazines used in the Virginia Tech massacre and that the class of guns chosen were those used by gangs and police killers. After admitting that she did not know what a barrel shroud was, she ventured a guess, "I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up." [8]

to:

She avoided the question by responding that more importantly the legislation would ban "large capacity" magazines used in the Virginia Tech massacre and that the class of guns chosen were those used by gangs and police killers. After admitting that she did not know what a barrel shroud was, she ventured an erroneous guess, "I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up." [8] This cost her position an enormous amount of credibility, because she could not identify one of the assault weapon features which she had spent a large amount of effort campaigning against. Logically, if such weapons were truly a personal concern, she would be more familiar with them in enacting such a broad prohibition.[9] Her opponents on this issue cite the fact that a barrel shroud is actually a safety device to protect firearm users against burns from a hot barrel.[10]

I reversed this change (for the nth time in the past several weeks) for the following reasons:

• "The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance..." is not a reliable source. It is a blog. Please read up in detail what that entails. In particular:

  A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

  This is not a published source. And again:

  Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.

  This has no such structures. And more:

  In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.

  This blog is none of those. More:

  Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

• The second reference is to a Wikipedia article. Again from reliable sources:

  Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources.

Wikipedia can never be used as a source.

Therefore, the text that you added is still not valid for Wikipedia, I'm sorry.

• A point-of-view characterizations such as "She avoided the question", violates No Point of View -- keep things neutral.

• "This cost her position an enormous amount of credibility," is a violation of no original research.

Fundamentally, it is arguably invalid to even have this section in her article. Accept in affected communities, it isn't earth-shattering news, in other words really not notable, another Wikipedia requirement, that a congressperson doesn't know all the details in a piece of legislation that they are supporting. Just look at the Patriot Act. John Conyers admitted that most don't read the legislation but depend upon their staff. If we added to each member's Wikipedia page every time they were "caught" not knowing all the details of legislation, it would monopolize the article.

However, after a lot of conversation, we came up with this compromise consensus paragraph, written in a neutral tone. I would think it is best to leave it alone.

However, if you can find a reliable source that does make an issue of this, then you can quote it appropriately. For example, "A columnist for the Washington Times criticized McCarthy for not being aware of the definition of a barrel shroud." We just have to keep our POV in check. Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 02:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How is Tucker Carlson's show, aired nationwide on a major cable news channel, not a reliable source in and of itself? Tucker was most certainly criticizing her for trying to ban an item without even knowing what it is. 76.123.216.96 (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is arguing that the show isn't a reliable source -- it is twice used as a reference and a third time as an external link. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Barrel shrouds part 3

I moved this comment from my talk page to here. ∴ Therefore | talk 22:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Therefore § Carolyn McCarthy

Therefore - have noted you reverting many changes to the entry Carolyn McCarthy because of their unsourced nature, even those that maintain neutrality. Please remember that not every sentence on Wikipedia must be cited - there are a number of other unsourced statements in that article that you have not reverted - only those pertaining to her appearance on Tucker Carlson's TV show. Reverting only statements pertaining to that topic - and not for example, the unsourced statement regarding her life being made into a movie - calls your neutrality into question. unsigned comment by 71.111.215.3.

I understand your frustration that I reverted your statements. This paragraph has gone through much discussion above at Talk:Carolyn McCarthy#Barrel shrouds and Talk:Carolyn McCarthy#Barrel shrouds redux. Arguably, the Vtech paragraph should not be included -- the Tucker Carlson show is a "primary source" and primary sources are discouraged. Instead, tertiary sources, i.e., other accounts from reliable sources (which don't include blogs) should be used. Please read WP:PSTS. In other words, if we went strictly by the letter of Wikipedia policy, this paragraph would need, say, "The Washington Times editorialized that Carolyn McCarthy's ignorance of an element of the bill she supported throws into question her expertise in the area." See the difference? It is not up to you or me to determine if a primary source can be used as a criticism.

That "lesson" aside, we came to the compromise via consensus, the cornerstone of Wikipedia, to go ahead and keep the paragraph but wrote it with a neutral tone of voice and verifying with reliable sources. I reverted your addition:

This incident has been seized upon by pro-gun advocates, who charge that McCarthy is introducing restrictive legislation without even understanding her own bills.

because you offered no sources let alone any reliable sources. Although I would quibble with your statement:

Please remember that not every sentence on Wikipedia must be cited

I think I get your drift. Certainly, WP is rife with unsourced statements. But that is not an excuse to allow it in this case. From WP:CITE:

attribution is required for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." Any material that is challenged, and for which no source is provided within a reasonable time (or immediately if it's about a living person), may be removed by any editor.

Now, your statements might be and, in fact, probably are "true". But here is the most difficult, fundamental component of Wikipedia from WP:V:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.[emphasis from source]

I can't find anywhere that Wikipedia, as a matter of policy or guidelines, allows unsourced statements except, say, 5 + 5 = 10. I recommend reading up on the Wikipedia policies, read the discussions on this talk page, and then come and explain why these policies are not applicable in this case.

I have reverted many other changes -- the attempt to use the euphemistic "gun safety" vs. the more proper "gun control". I have spent much time adding in sources for the other sections of the article, though I'm not the author of the article. You see me reverting the Vtech changes often because that is 95% of the edits in the past six months. And many other editors have done the same. I would *not* revert the addition of a sourced criticism that came from a reliable source. That is the criteria for Wikipedia. The criticism is in the eye of the beholder when reading the text as it stands -- for gun rights advocates, they clearly can infer that this discounts her credibility as a gun control advocate. To a gun control advocate (or neutral on the issue and even some gun rights advocates), they can infer that this was a small element of a large package and that it is not uncommon for a representative to not know all the details of their bills (ala, the Patriot Act) -- though they should, in my opinion. This is good: because it is written factually (via sources) and neutrally, the reader may do the inferring rather than the editor forcing their own POV conclusions. But add a reliable source and that would stay. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 22:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As a postscript, if you found a representative who voted against the bill but, not being an expert, didn't know what a barrel shroud was, would you also think they lacked the credibility to do so? McCarthy and the hypothetical opponent may vote based on their respective first principles without having to know what, say, a "Calico Liberty" is, another part of the bill. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Final postscript -- I took your criticisms of other unsourced statements in the article to heart. I think that I have cleaned that up by removing some unsourcable statments and sourcing others. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 00:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. It was not your particular reversion of my own edits that bothered me, only that the significant majority of your reversions were of statements which would be considered "pro-gun" or reflective of pro-gun philosophy, rather than simply for their unsourced nature. I felt that while the statements may indeed have been unsourced, your non-reversion of more anti-gun or even neutral unsourced statements reflected poorly on the supposed neutrality of Wikipedia. I appreciate your work since then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.215.3 (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Barrel shrouds part 4

So I edited in some info but someone decided to revert it. The section of the article now reads something like a press-release that McCarthy might have put out after the incident trying to downplay the "i don't know" part. Furthermore, it makes it sound like she quickly admitted to not knowing, but then gave her reasoning for the rest of the bill. We both know that didn't actually happen. If the incident was relevant/important enough to rate a blow-by-blow in the article; the blow-by-blow should be an accurate one and shouldn't omit the part where she dodged the question twice before finally admitting she didn't know what a barrel shroud was. Secondly - the part about the Walther P22 and it's magazines IS relevant to the final area, especially so when considering the inclusion of McCarthy's previous statement about high-capacity "clips". Walter P22s are sold with 10rd magazines, and while there is evidence he purchased magazines over the internet none of them were claimed to be over 10 rounds. She is correct about the G19 magazines, though.76.25.115.99 (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

First, I agree with you -- this entire section should not be included at all. The incident was neither relevant nor important. I'm going to cut and paste from the arguments above because I'm too lazy to re-type the reasons:

[T]he Tucker Carlson show is a "primary source" and primary sources are discouraged. Instead, tertiary sources, i.e., other accounts from reliable sources (which don't include blogs) should be used. Please read WP:PSTS. In other words, if we went strictly by the letter of Wikipedia policy, this paragraph would need, say, "The Washington Times editorialized that Carolyn McCarthy's ignorance of an element of the bill she supported throws into question her expertise in the area." See the difference? It is not up to you or me to determine if a primary source can be used as a criticism.

I could find no reliable source from a mainstream publication known for fact checking and reliability that made any mention of this (I tried, I tried). This section shouldn't read as a McCarthy PR piece nor as an NRA hit piece (pun intended). It shouldn't be here at all. Let's exclude it. Thoughts?

The Walther P22 commentary is relevant to (say) a blog or a newsgroup as an argument against McCarthy. To include it here, you need to find a reliable source that makes that point. Wikipedia isn't the place to publish original analysis -- it's a learning curve we have all gone through. Wikipedia is a publisher of third party reliable analysis. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I never said that it shouldn't be included. She is notable for her strong position on gun control, and for her numerous attempts to pass more restrictive gun legislation (even in the article, the section on "gun control" is twice as long as the rest of the "positions" section combined) - so her admitting she doesn't even know what something she is trying to restrict is, is important. It shouldn't be cut out completely because the perfect source cannot be found. "When pressed, McCarthy admitted she did not know what a barrel shroud was, stating "I believe it's the shoulder thing that goes up." That is what happened, plain and simple. I don't consider than an original analysis.

The P22 thing I feel is relevant to this article. Maybe a better way needs to be found to put it in the article, but in the interest of providing the reader more information it should be there. I'm less concerned about this than the tucker incident, though. R.westermeyer (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Couple points of clarity: I said it shouldn't be included and it shouldn't not because there isn't a "perfect source" but because there is absolutely no reliable source that makes an issue over this. Reliable sources determine notability. Secondly, I didn't state that her Tucker comments was original analysis; adding in the P22 thing is. Find a reliable third party source that makes this an issue with respect to McCarthy, then it would be a candidate for inclusion.

Although I disagree with its inclusion, the resultant paragraph was a compromise. Giving this any more than it already has would cause undue weight and non-neutral point of view problems more than it already does. The intent of its inclusion is to discredit McCarthy's stance on gun control but there isn't a single reliable source that makes that assertion. Really, that a legislator isn't aware of all of the technical provisions of a piece of legislation isn't exactly earth breaking news. If you are interested, I'd be happy to take this to arbitration -- I can tell you what will happen if given the choice of expansion (your position) or mine (remove it all due to its lack of reliable sourcing), the community will vote for removal. This is a biography of a living person and little tolerance is afforded to poorly sourced assertions such as this. In the meantime, in order to allow for compromise I've let the paragraph, as neutrally written (even if you characterize it as a PR piece), stand. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 04:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't aware that compromise meant "word it to be as friendly towards McCarthy as possible". Your wording is just plain old inaccurate. My original intent was to make the section, which already existed, less biased than it was. The intent was not to discredit McCarthy. The old wording would have been something I might have read on the Brady Campaign's website, your new wording is more like a press release from McCarthy as I've already stated. It is not neutral in any way - why is the last, and obviously most important thing that happened mentioned first, then quickly downplayed? You seem to be on the anti-gun side of this, and admittedly I'm on the pro side. I'm just saying that if it's going to be there at all, it might as well be correct. I would prefer it be deleted entirely than have the event misrepresented. And I would hope a politician whose main issue is gun control would know at least a little about the things she's trying to ban. If I was a legislator with a focus on legislating against nuclear power, had introduced a ban on fuel rods, but then admitted I didn't know what they were, I would be called an idiot and rightfully so. To reiterate, if you're not willing to include a correct version of events, just go ahead and delete that paragraph. R.westermeyer (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is my point: You want to show that McCarthy is "an idiot and rightfully so" because she was unfamiliar with barrel shrouds. My point isn't that she isn't an idiot (nor that she is) but that no third party reliable source has criticized her as such -- you are not such a third party (nor am I). Wikipedia isn't about "truth" it is about verification (it's a mantra).

I wouldn't characterize the current wording in the manner that you do nor do I believe it indicates a bias on my part. However, I believe we are in agreement that the section should be removed for its lack of adherence to Wikipedia policies. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead and delete it. I do want to say however my point was never to discredit her (she does that well enough on her own). If the section was going to be in there it might as well have been accurate. R.westermeyer (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What gun control laws were in effect when Dennis McCarthy was murdered?

The article mentions that the murder of her husband Dennis was the motivation for her campaign for more stringent gun control which propelled her to congress, but nothing is mentioned about what gun control laws were in effect when her husband was murdered. I believe the state of New York had a complete ban on hand gun possession in effect on December, 1993. A Google search hasn't turned up anything on this either. Colin Ferguson was indicted for criminal possession of a weapon , but this doesn't say what gun control laws were in effect at the time. This seems like a very obvious subject to include in this article along with all of McCarthy's position on gun control. --Dwschulze (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Seperate Article - Political Positions

A lot of other politician articles, have a seperate articles on their political positions if there is many information, and McCarthy certainly does. Unless there is any objections, I will create a seperate article. Whitestorm17 (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Tucker gaffe

• On the April 18, 2007, episode of MSNBC's program Tucker, Tucker Carlson interviewed McCarthy about the Virginia Tech massacre and her proposed reauthorization of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He asked her to explain the need to regulate barrel shrouds, one of the many provisions included in her bill. She did not directly respond, instead stating it was more important that the legislation would ban large capacity "clips" (sic) of the type used in the Virginia Tech massacre and that the class of guns chosen prohibited by the law were those used by gangs and killers of police officers. That statement was factually incorrect; Cho's largest magazines held fifteen rounds, thus making them illegal under the AWB. When Carlson pressed her twice more on the question about barrel shrouds, she admitted that she did not know what a barrel shroud was, and incorrectly stated, "I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up." Carlson replied with, "No, No it's not."

This was a minor misstatement on a cable TV show - not a political position. There ain't any secondary sources to say it's important. The pro-gun folks have kept a similar gaffe by Wayne LaPierre out of his biography, even though it was testimony to a congressional panel and received attention by secondary sources.[5] They called that a violation of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Nobody better restore this BLP violation until they can show it follows all the rules, like neutral POV and isn't undue. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Medical details

C'mon guys, this ain't supposed to be a hatchet job. Details of this lady's medical condition don't belong in the barebones intro, and they sure as hell shouldn't use an opinion piece as the main source. Find a regular news piece on the lawsuit if it's worth including. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)