The two articles at issue here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms (redirect fro

The two articles at issue here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms (redirect from "Gun rights") and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control definitely put a different complexion on the subject -- or at least very closely related subjects -- and it seems like someone searching for "Gun rights" would probably be better served by being shown the first article. So I think you're right to be skeptical here. On the other hand, after a scan of each, I see two plausible reasons that the "Gun control" article might be elevated. One, it's somewhat longer, with more references and cross-links (it even has a "See also" link to the "Gun rights" article). Two, superficially, the "Gun control" article is a bit more internationally focused. The title of the "Gun rights" article is straight out of the U.S. Constitution. The appearance doesn't really hold up under scrutiny -- they both spend similar shares of their content on U.S. stuff -- but it might make a small difference. Regardless of the reason, it's definitely good to pay attention to this sort of thing.