Talk:Assault weapon/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 8

What next?

I think that practically everybody here has the same underlying thoughts and concerns, but different views on how to address them. I think that there is little support for trying to do that via a name change. May I suggest that we work together on different ideas? North8000 (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The areas that I intend to work on are:
  • To build the definitions section to include the immense range of definitions that this terms has been given.
  • To build coverage of discussion/points about the term, probably in the political section.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

possible addition

This article is mainly dealing with video game violence, but in the attached video, at 5:30-6:30, you can hear Sen Joe Liberman in a congressional hearing saying that the Nintendo Superscope looks like an assault weapon to him. Could be illustrative of the lack of definition. http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/01/18/a-brief-history-of-dumb-censorship Gaijin42 (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Overall development

I know that short term we've been concentrating on the lead itself, (and rightly so) we still need to keep the longer term picture in mind. Which is development of content in the body of the article, and then having the lead summarize what is in the body of the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur with those who say that this article overall reads as though it was written by the NRA on behalf of the gun manufacturers. I'm not surprised, because in my experience debating with NRA types online, I've found that they police discussions of firearms online vigilantly, and frequently use their knowledge of firearms to deceive people who are not as knowledgeable about small arms as they are. In this case, throughout the entry I see a consistent effort to delegitimize the term as being vague and misleading. However, what they're really doing is de-emphasizing important similarities between civilian assault weapons and their military cousins while at the same time over-emphasizing differences between civilian assault weapons like the AR-15 and military-issue assault weapons like the M-16 and AK-47. Their purpose is to head off the possibility of an assault weapons ban, as President Obama proposed today, in fact.

This starts with omitting the historical context, which explains why assault weapons exist, and what their various design elements mean as a gestalt. That would be included in a legitimate encyclopedia entry. Basically the iconic firearm of WWII was the M-1 Garand rifle, a gas-operated semiautomatic that takes an 8-round internal clip, not an external magazine, and fires a .30 cal. round. The rifle is accurate at long range and the round has considerable penetrating power--as through the metal door of a vehicle, for example. However, military science found that in combat soldiers tend not to use their weapon in the way that the M1 is optimized for. Soldiers needed what became the assault rifle, a much lighter weapon carrying a much lighter round, so they could carry a lot more ammo into combat, and so the rifle could be maneuvered more quickly than the older, more ponderous rifles like the M-1, and fired automatically or semi-automatically. However, they soon discovered that assault weapons ran out of ammo too quickly in full-auto mode and these lightweight guns also tended to jam and cook off rounds if used in full auto mode. Now small arts tactics dictate using them either in single shot mode or in 2-3 round bursts. The goal is to lay down suppressive fire on a charging enemy force at close enough distances so that the greater maneuverability of the weapon is vital.

Consequently the difference in being able to be fired automatically or just in single-shot mode is an inconsequential difference between the M-16 and the AR-15, especially since civilian assault weapons like the AR-15 can be fired with amazing rapidity (and poor aim) in "bump fire" mode, using the effect of the gas-operating mechanism on the trigger to fire nearly as rapidly as you could in full auto mode. In the Aurora shooting incident the shooter was timed at getting off 30 rounds in 27 seconds (heard via a 911 call made by one of the theater goers). The NRA is highly incentivized to claim that full-auto capability is the be-all and the end-all of the term "assault weapon" so they can avoid another assault weapons ban. It is highly likely that most profits of arms manufacturers come from sales of assault weapons. They've sold literally millions of these weapons at premium prices.

This has been paralleled in arms manufacturer marketing, which sold these weapons as assault weapons--emphasizing the "commando" context with ads showing the guns being used in what appear to be combat patrols--until very recently, when the marketing suddenly changed on the part of the manufacturers so they could pretend these guns were never sold as assault weapons.

What does make a significant difference from older-generation combat arms like the M-1 is the assault weapon's ability to accept extended magazines. In a number of spree killing incidents, people nearby were able to take down the shooter when he had to reload. Even if reloading only takes a few seconds, that was enough to stop the Arizona shooter in the Gabby Giffords incident, for example. Because weapons like the M-1 use an internal clip instead of an external magazine, it can only fire 8 rounds before needing to be reloaded, and can't be reloaded as quickly as an external magazine can be swapped out, and can't accept clips with more than 8 rounds. The Arizona shooter was able to do as much damage as he did because his Glock assault weapon--a pistol in this case--had a 30-round extended magazine, and he was able to prevent anyone from getting to him before he emptied that magazine.

Likewise the .223 round used by the AR-15 and the M-16 differs greatly from the .30 cal. round of the M-1 and the .22LR "plinker" round of standard lightweight hunting rifles. At the shorter ranges found in most spree killing incidents, and absent body armor on the intended victims, it's the ideal round for mass murder, with a "wobbly" bullet that achieves far more damage upon entry in a body than a standard .22LR round does--especially since it has three times the muzzle velocity of civilian rounds like the .22LR. Coupled with the light weight of the .223 round, it means that a spree killer can carry many more rounds and fire them much more quickly and have them inflict much more damage.

So a lightweight assault weapon shooting .223 rounds via extended magazines in semi-automatic mode with occasional bump firing is a very different weapon than a standard hunting rifle trying to do the same thing, even those that are semi-automatic. It's the mobility of the weapon, the ability to prevent people from grabbing the shooter due to the large capacity magazines, and the lethality of its munition coupled with the easy of carrying a large amount of ammo that makes assault weapons assault weapons.

NRA types poo-pooh the "atmospherics" of the assault weapon in the article--the way it looks. However, as I indicated earlier, the gun makers considered these atmospherics important marketing tools until the prospect of another assault weapons ban arose. And spree killers commonly see themselves as commandos on a mission, as the rants by the Virginia Tech shooter demonstrated. For example, a folding stock is the functional equivalent of a wooden stock in most applications, but for a spree killer folding up the stock would help in maneuvering the weapon in close quarters to kill as many people as possible in a short time, and of course it contributes to the overall light weight of the weapon.

Also, famous military experts such as General Colin Powell and General Stanley McChrystal (both infantry officers) both used the term "assault weapon" in interviews in the last few days, without feeling the need to launch into more definition than mentioning the Bushmaster as an example. And both generals said that they believed there was no justification for assault weapons--naming the Bushmaster as example--being in civilian hands in most circumstances (one notable exception would be for hunting wild pigs from helicopters, which is less hunting than pest management). When authorities like these men use the term and voice a strong opinion about assault weapons, that should be included in this entry. Their mention and evaluation of assault weapons should be included in the article.

I believe that NRA members generally know all of this, but choose to be deceptive, here as elsewhere.

Ehkzu (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Ehkzu (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The M1 clip could be replaced in about a second. If it were really clumsy then it wouldn't have been called "The greatest battle emplement ever devised." by Gen. Patton. It is true that mid 20th century the military put more emphasis on quantity of ammo than power. Because most firefights took place in close range. But following you're, not flawed, reasoning further, it just explains why 95% of fire-arms used in crimes are handguns and not rifles. Just a pistol cartidge is adequate to kill someone, especially someone without body armor and not prepared to defend themself. One can fire a modern pistol, such as a glock, just as rapidly or more so than a semi auto rifle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:107:D5E4:4D71:44CC:EB8C (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the original poster in this category omits a lot of information that would discredit his argument. First, he uses non-neutral terms. I got a chuckle out of "Glock assault weapon". Almost as funny as "Glock Safe-Action Pistol" if you've ever met anyone with Glock Leg. It's never explained here what would make an M1 Carbine with a standard stock a less dangerous gun than the paratrooper version of the same gun which featured a folding wireframe stock and pistol grip (the first is not considered an assault weapon by most people's definition). Also, calling the M1 Garand the iconic rifle of WWII ignores a lot of factors. It was hardly the only weapon in service. The Thompson SMG, the Grease Gun, the Browning Automatic Rifle, the M1 Carbine, and the Springfield M1903 were all issued to US troops. Of those, four had detachable magazines. The Thompson is in some ways the trope-maker for media-fueled firearms histeria, with Gangster movies featuring it, with not one but two pistol grips and a big drum magazine. That had a lot to do with the NFA of 1934. Of course, the NFA wouldn't have stopped the rampant crime in the 1930's. The crime was in large part a societal issue brought on by Prohibition and economic depression. Clyde Barrow got his BARs by robbing National Guard armories, not through legitimate purchase.

The fact is "bump firing" is not really much of a thing outside of people goofing off at a shooting range. You might be able to get off shots fast that way, but you're not going to hit anything. I don't know why you even brought it up.

You also mention "famous military experts". Their opinion on so-called assault weapons doesn't carry any more weight than a civilian because the so-called "assault weapons" are NOT military weapons. They're commercial arms sold to the civilian market. Some are based on military weapons or are descended from similar patterns. Winchester's rifles were fast-firing, high capacity guns for their day and widely used by the military. Yet the lever action design has plenty of non-military use. There is no reason that semi-autos cannot also have non-military use (this, of course, ignoring what the 2nd Amendment actually means- the ability of the populace to keep their government from consolidating too much power.).

The fact is, the "assault weapon" term is one either carelessly or deceptively thrown around by anti-gun (not gonna call them pro-gun control because that's a weasel word) advocates to confuse people. An assault RIFLE is a definite article. Selective fire, intermediate cartridge. An assault WEAPON is just a catch-all term for whatever looks scary, and you know it. You just don't care. A bone-stock Ruger Mini-14 isn't an assault weapon, yet you add a folding stock and a bigger mag, and all of a sudden it's more dangerous (becaust it's more concealable? Concealed carry is legal in many states. Bigger magazine? If you're going to use it for personal defense, you have to realize that outside of the military's elite, not many can put an assailant down with one shot). The logic doesn't hold up.

As for the lethality of the munition- the "tumbling 5.56" was a behavior only exhibited by its initial military load. It doesn't make a terribly big hole, and the tumbling is really only a way to get around warfare restrictions on using expanding ammunition. A 5.56 with a full-metal jacket round is a lot less lethal to any part of an unarmored target than a soft-nose or hollow-point round, even with an "outdated" (i.e. originally black powder) cartridge like a .38 Special or .303 British. Lethality with a full metal jacket round is all about placement. People have walked away from 15 rounds of 5.56 FMJ under their own power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.87.110 (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Finally, you don't actually cite any sources. You may as well be pulling communiques out of your rear quarters. I guess I didn't either. My Composition prof would have my ass for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.87.110 (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"Anti-gun" versus "Gun control"

Regarding this revert, "anti-gun" is a POV term, since the two sides generally describe themselves from a "positive" point of view (i.e., being for "gun rights" or "pro-2nd Amendment", or being for "gun control", etc). When it comes to pregnancy termination (another hotly contested constitutional issue), they're usually described as "pro-life" or "pro-choice", not "anti-choice" or "anti-life", even though foes in the two camps will readily label each other to their POV likings. Joseph Tartaro may repeatedly refer to his ideological opponents as "anti-gun", but isn't it more neutral and appropriate to use "gun control strategists" in that context? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No. The issue at hand is to express Joseph Tartaro's point as he stated it, not to change what he said into a different view. His quote in the cite specifically says, "One of the key elements of the anti-gun strategy to gull the public into supporting bans on the so-called "assault weapons" is to foster confusion." It wouldn't be accurate to mislead readers on his quoted viewpoint. Would you want to be misquoted on what you said, with a badly-worded paraphrase that turned your statement on its head? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I dislike anti-anything phrases; however, the sentence in question said "Joseph P. Tartaro of the Second Amendment Foundation wrote in 1994 that he believed that the term "assault weapon" was intended by anti-gun strategists to foster confusion with the public". He did not write "gun control strategists". Perhaps the sentence could be reworded so that his use of anti-gun is part of the quote, rather than paraphrased. Ryan Vesey 00:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think saying "gun control" in lieu "anti-gun" turns Tartaro's statement on its head (as in reversing it, 180 degrees). In this respect, they are essentially synonyms, but with POV connotations. A closer reading of the original source, however, says "anti-gun strategy" rather than "strategists", so a simpler fix is to just use "anti-gun strategy" instead. I'll make that edit right now; if there are objections, revert the text and we can continue discussing it. AzureCitizen (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Since it's not part of the quote, I'm changing it from "anti-gun" to "pro-gun-control". But if anyone wants to change the article to include "anti-gun" as part of a direct quote, feel free. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
After this edit by AzureCitizen and this edit by me, we're using the direct quote. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that's a good solution. Ryan Vesey 01:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Demonizing guns

Hi Yaf. Thanks for adding a citation. There are still some problems with the sentence based on the cite. The source contains the key statements "These guns are no more powerful than many semiautomatic rifles legally used for hunting in California and throughout the United States" and "They don't shoot farther, faster or with more power", but it doesn't make the point that gun rights advocates consider the term a misnomer on that basis, or that it was specifically intended to "demonize" guns. We've also got the phrases "invented specifically" and "intended solely" used redundantly in the sentence now. Can you find another source that makes these specific points? Without one, the sentence would be better phrased in a more neutral POV fashion. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The overwhelming reality is that the entire creation and promulgation of the term is for political purposes, and most of those purposes misleading people in various ways. (capitalizing on the confusion with military assault rifles, trying to give the impression that the military-appearing firearms are more powerful for "assaults" etc.) Since its massively varying meanings have encompassed about 3/4 of ALL firearms, "assault weapon" is not a type of gun, it is a term of misleading and manipulation. The words that you are addressing are the beginnings of the missing coverage about the development, promulgation and uses of this TERM (it's not a type of gun, it's a TERM). The beginnings of that coverage need to be improved and expanded upon, not nibbled out of the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi North. If that's the overwhelming reality, it shouldn't be difficult to find good reliable secondary sourcing to cover this, improving and expanding on it. As a controversial issue, we should be careful about using Wikipedia's voice to make these assertions, or using loaded language (e.g., "demonizing", invented specifically and intended solely). In my next two edits, I'm going to separate out the contested rephrase in the text, rephrase it in accord with the source, and then move it down, so that what I'm getting at becomes very clear. I'll do that in two steps, then come back here and link the diffs. AzureCitizen (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay, see edit 1 and 2. If the right sourcing is found, this can easily be undone and put back into place. Also, there is probably other (new) material which can be added into this paragraph regarding the term's controversy; have you thought about looking for more material by prominent guns right advocates that underscores what you're driving at? AzureCitizen (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

regarding confusion, Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy Center said "The public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is presumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." (which we already have in the article of course). As we are specifically crediting sugarman with popularizing the term, I'd say the conclusion is pretty obvious. http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm Gaijin42 (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

We're specifically crediting his 1988 book (plus the 1989 school shooting) with popularizing the term. Can you clarify/expand the conclusion you're drawing from it? AzureCitizen (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

* We agree he popularized the term. He specifically says at the link above (which I believe is an exceprt from his book) that the term is confusing, and that that confusion serves the purpose of increasing support for gun bans. In addition to this very explicit admission of exploiting the confusion, we have MANY examples of politicians and gun gontrol groups either very ignorantly confusing them, or intentionally using that confusion as part of their arguments

  • "Supporters of more gun control acknowledge the constitutional right to bear arms, but argue that rifles capable of firing multiple rounds automatically or semi-automatically exceed the reasonable needs of hunters and other gun enthusiasts."
  • Or this nice quote from Feinstein : "Military-style assault weapons have but one purpose, and in my view that's a military purpose, to hold at the hip, possibly, to spray fire to be able to kill large numbers."
  • or these "The VPC also claims "'Spray-firing' from the hip, a widely recognized technique for the use of assault weapons in certain combat situations, has no place in civil society," and that "assault weapons" have "a rear pistol or thumb-hole grip . . . [to] make possible the deadly and indiscriminate 'spray-firing' for which assault weapons are designed.83Similarly, the Brady Campaign claims, "Pistol grips on assault rifles and shotguns help stabilize the weapon during rapid fire and allow the shooter to spray-fire from the hip position"
  • Sen Ted Cruze, at the recent gun control hearings  :" The assault weapon ban, if it doesn't ban machine guns, what does it ban?" http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report-bret-baier/2013/01/31/all-star-panel-gun-control-debate-capitol-hill
  • Assault weapons were designed for and should be used on our battlefields, not on our streets," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
    • Are the guys on our battlefield restricted to semi-automatics? If so, that might be why the war on terror is going so slowly. He is specifically and intentionally conflating the fully automatic weapons used by soldiers with "assault weapons" under discussion.
  • The quote from 8 year old Grant, that Obama read on the air during his executive order signing "Please don’t let people own machine guns, or powerful guns like that"
    • Why would he choose to read a letter mentioning machine guns, when none of the proposed actions or legislation affects machine guns in any way?
  • Confusion specifically addressed by Forbes "In doing so, Senator Feinstein, a former concealed gun-carrier, conveniently exploits rampant political and media confusion between military automatic weapons and domestic U.S. semi-automatic firearms which operate very differently" http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/01/27/who-is-the-gun-lobby-me-for-sure-maybe-you-too/2/
  • Newsweek : "An assault weapon is that which used to be called a “submachine gun.” That is, a handheld long gun that will fire continuously as long as the trigger is held down." http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-of-chelm-by-david-mamet.html

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC) More

  • Daryl Gates (LA Police Chief) - "There is no need for citizens to have highly sophisticated military assault rifles designed for the sole purpose of killing people on the battlefield."
    • Again, are our guys using these on the battlefield?
  • From Time "These fast-firing, powerful guns, capable of sending a bullet through a concrete wall, were once rare outside the military"
  • Chuck Schumer "These are guns that were fashioned for no other purpose than to kill,They were designed not for hunting or plinking, but so that the average draftee with no real gun expertise could spray a lot of lead around in combat. The civilian versions are essentially the same as the military versions."
  • Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York asked whether hunters needed "a Mac 10 machine gun with 30 round banana clips of armor piercing bullets to bag a quail?"
  • CBS 1989, "Assault Weapons Under Fire" - repeatedly shows footage of fully automatic fire
  • NBC 89 (with an incredibly young looking Matt Lauer) - same thing. Assault weapons story, fully automatic footage
  • CNN 2004, same thing. Specifically identifying the fully automatic ak47 as one that is currently banned that will be legal when the ban expires.
  • NBC Chicago, http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Assault-Weapons-Surge-in-City-69620227.html - fully automatic footage

Gaijin42 (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Good collection of raw material. I think a lot of this has to do with careless use of language; others may read these statements and conclude it's deliberately willful deception, with the speaker knowing full well as they're choosing their words that they are deliberately conflating technical aspects. Its very easy to do (conflating the terms). For example, I see above where you've quoted Chief Gates ("There is no need for citizens to have highly sophisticated military assault rifles designed for the sole purpose of killing people on the battlefield") and you asked the question right below that "Again, are our guys using these on the battlefield?". After having had two deployments to Iraq with the Army, I can assure you that the answer to that question is yes, our guys are using those on the battlefield. AzureCitizen (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
1) Thank you for your service. 2) You were using a semi-auto only rifle that did not have any multiple round burst selective fire? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
1) Thank you, 2) No, the M16A2 is selective fire, i.e., single-shot and burst capable. Please take note that Gates spoke of "assault rifles", whereupon I think it got flipped around in your mind when you asked if our troops are using these. The point being, in open discourse, people get things flipped around all the time (and by accident). Hope that clears that up? I'm not trying to introduce further confusion... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not confused at all. What you are saying is exactly my point. In a debate about assault weapons bans, he brought up fully automatic battlefield assault rifles. via either intentional misrepresentation, or complete confusion he is saying one the two things : 1) our soldiers are using semi-automatic assault weapons. OR 2) the weapons under consideration to be banned are selective fire. To be otherwise would make his statement a complete non-sequitur. This pattern of either extreme confusion or deliberate lie is extremely pervasive in the media, politicians etc. If they are lying, we should be documenting that. If they are confused to that level, then why are we discussing their opinions (except to document said confusion). That was the point being made above by North, which I am in agreement with. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
If we're trying to figure out if Gates lied, it would help to see the quote in context. What link did you get it from? AzureCitizen (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,151151,00.html - Article published in 89 (this particular link is saying 2001, but it was originally from 89), so certainly significantly after NFA38 effectively banned fully automatic weapons. Repeatedly uses the term "assault rifles" The context of the article is specifically using the Cleveland School massacre as a hook for the discussion, where a semi-automatic AK clone was used. 'In California, Governor George Deukmejian and Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates, longtime foes of gun control, have lessened their opposition -- at least when it comes to paramilitary weapons. Deukmejian now calls for a 15-day waiting period for the purchase of assault rifles. Gates would apply the waiting period to purchases of all kinds of guns, and has called for an outright ban on paramilitary weapons. Says he: "We have been too tolerant. There is no need for citizens to have highly sophisticated military assault rifles designed for the sole purpose of killing people on the battlefield.'. Unless you think he is saying we should ban fully automatic weapons (that are already banned) he is clearly talking about semi-automatic "assault weapons" and saying they are military battlefield weapons. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that deceiving is the better term than lying, and such is pervasive. Obama said something similar, like that the firearms we was proposing to restrict "belong on the battlefield, not on the streets". The fluidity of the term makes it possible to deceive without technically lying. North8000 (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for finding a good link Gaijin. I agree, he's probably talking about semi-automatic "assault weapons" - that makes more sense, since it's in reference to him calling for a "ban". With regard to whether or not he intentionally deceived, there's no way to be sure, but I suspect he got confused and conflated the terms like so many others have during a press interview. Interesting that he was a longtime opponent to gun control. His Wiki bio does say he once testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee that infrequent or casual drug users "ought to be taken out and shot" because "we're in a war" and even casual drug use is "treason", which might infer he was in the habit of trying to get a reaction out of people. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, its a gray area, and depends on what the particular statement is. The more details they add (implying military use or using terms like spray-fire, machine-gun, etc) make it more difficult to give the benefit of the doubt that it it is not intentional deception (or outright ignorance of what they are discussing). If the people proposing the laws are confused to that level, we should be heavily documenting that. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Political term

Someone added that it is a political term. I think that that is an accurate and informative summarization from the sourced material in the article. We should not be too quick to revert that. North8000 (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi North. The controversy over whether or not it's political term is addressed in the section that immediately follows - Political and legislative issues. Redundancy aside, by Pollack man34 stating it in de facto fashion with his or her edit here it becomes a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. I'm going to respectfully revert but will return to discussing it with you here if you think this needs further consideration at this location in the article. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't feel a need to have something said in a particular way or in a particular place. I just think that this article fails to sufficiently inform that since "assault weapon" has been variably used to refer to about 3/4 of all firearms, and thus it is a term that is not about any actual type of gun. And it's entire history of use has been strictly political and in (proposed) legislation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
There's probably more that can be added in somewhere that speaks to specific factual points like that, i.e., a reliable source somewhere that makes the point that three quarters of all firearms meet the definition of an "assault weapon". Seems relevant to me! In so far as political use, it seems like those aspects are already discussed or inferred in a majority of the article's sections already. AzureCitizen (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Cosmetic features

I notice the article uses the term "cosmetic" extensively when referring to the list of characteristics that define "assault weapons" under several US laws. Borrowing from wikt:cosmetic, we can see that the applicable definition is "External or superficial; pertaining only to the surface or appearance of something." However, not all of the criteria are purely superficial. For example, a threaded barrel has a utilitarian purpose, it allows the use of flash suppressors or silencers. Similarly a bayonet mount is also clearly not purely superficial (it can be used to mount bayonets). Now, some of the features are purely superficial, but since some of them aren't I don't think we should be using the word cosmetic. I am aware that two sources exist that use the term cosmetic, both are quoting gun rights advocates (the executive director of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, and Dave Kopel). Now that isn't a problem per se, but I'm not sure it justifies using the term throughout (12 times in this article). Is there a better term we can use? I do think it is important to note these features do not affect the operation of the gun, but cosmetic is probably not the right word. Prodego talk 19:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe that somebody provided sources that showed that people on both sides of the debate used that term to characterize those items. North8000 (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Cosmetic does not always mean functionless. In the case of assault weapons it indicates that having them (or not) is not affecting the core functionality/action of the weapon. (Definition #2 of cosmetic is "On the surface" - and all of the features being described as cosmetic are external to the weapon.) As stated by North8000, the term is widely accepted/used by both sides. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
If that's the common use then it would be the right word to use. It is still used a large number of times, but that's something more subjective. Prodego talk 19:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

From pro control sites (both saying that the guns that avoided bans had cosmetic differences, so not definitive proof)

The URL for the cited Brady Center report doesn't work. This one does: http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/on_target.pdf - But if you search the article, you'll see that the word "cosmetic" appears in it as a quote from Bushmaster spokesperson Allen Faraday. It is expressing the opinion of Bushmaster - not the Brady Center. I will respond to the VPC citation below, after Mudawater's January 18 comment. Lightbreather (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It does seem that pro-control sources are starting to lean towards "Military-style features", but that imo that is not acceptable to use in wikipedia, as it is a POV as many of the features do have non-military purposes. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, "military-style" is no good. I would personally use the term 'features' or 'characteristics' with no modifier. Prodego talk 19:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that the intent of "cosmetic" from both sides is that they do not affect the shooting capabilities of the firearm. I think that this is useful information. North8000 (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The two links provided above by Gaijin42, from the pro gun control sites, do not say that the features that define assault weapons are cosmetic. They say that after the federal ban passed, some manufacturers produced guns that were legal under the ban but that had only cosmetic differences from guns that were illegal under the ban. That's not the same thing at all. Whether the features are cosmetic or functional is part of the debate. For example, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence claims that assault weapons are "designed with military features to allow rapid and accurate spray firing." Personally I think that features like a pistol grip don't make guns more dangerous, and it seems to me that "accurate spray firing" is an oxymoron. Nevertheless, saying that the features are cosmetic is less than perfectly neutral, and saying it over and over is even less neutral. (But saying that the NRA says they're cosmetic is neutral, assuming that the article presents an balanced view of the controversy.) — Mudwater (Talk) 04:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree, Mudwater, that the two sources cited (made by Gaijin42?) do not say that the features that define assault weapons are cosmetic. In fact, the Brady Center report (I provided a new, working link with the citations above) only quotes Bushmaster's Allen Faraday saying that changes were cosmetic. The VPC came closer, in the citation provided, but what it said was, "Soon after its passage in 1994, the gun industry made a mockery of the federal assault weapons ban, manufacturing 'post-ban' assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts." That is not the same as saying that the features listed in the AWB were cosmetic. Lightbreather (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Suppose a gun is banned as an assault weapon. Cosmetic changes are made to the gun which make it legal. It follows that the only difference between the banned iteration and the legal iteration is cosmetic, and the ban covers cosmetic features of firearms. This is not to say that the ban only covers cosmetic features, but it does ban some weapons for cosmetic features.216.96.229.31 (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Here are a few discussions (mostly NOT RS's) I found coupling "cosmetic" with "assault weapon"

  • Pro-Firearms

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

  • Neutral

[7]

  • Anti-firearms

[8]

I think that overall folks are essentially saying that the items in legislation which separate the targeted firearms from grandpa's deer rifle are "cosmetic". The pro-firearm folks talk about the differences being "cosmetic" to say that the distinction between targeted firearms and widely accepted rifles is phony. The anti-gun folks talk about the differences being "cosmetic" to say that a wider ban that includes grandpa's deer rifle is needed because the differences between it and the targeted firearms are only "cosmetic". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Other arguments aside about who says they're "cosmetic" and who says they're not: Are 12 occurrences of the term "cosmetic" (10 in the body, two in the references) WP:NPOV and WP:DUE? The Definitions and usage section alone has "cosmetic" in it six times in its first paragraph! Lightbreather (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Request input/feedback please on 3+ articles that discuss assault weapons and federal assault weapons bans

Please see Federal Assault Weapons Ban talk page and respond there for Request input/feedback please on 3+ articles that discuss assault weapons and federal assault weapons bans

My apologies if I'm making this request wrong. Lightbreather (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Primarily but not exclusively?

Could someone please point me to an AWB that includes anything other than semi-automatic weapons? The NFA covers automatic weapons, and I am up-to-speed on AWB 1994, but not yet on the U.S. state and municipal laws. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

"Semiautomatic" covers the majority of modern firearms and so really doesn't say much. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
True, but I don't think that's what Lightbreather is asking. One example I can think of is the Armsel Striker, a double-action revolver shotgun with a clockwork assist. Because all shotgun gauges in common use except .410 have a bore diameter > half an inch, they're all subject to arbitrary NFA redefinition as destructive devices. Which happened to the Striker in the same year the Federal AW ban passed, clearly a political act in the same vein as the G. H. W. Bush administrative import bans we're still living with and the bans based on new legislation. It and its like have been banned by name in various AW bans including the Federal one, look for the US marketing name Street Sweeper as well as the original name. Hga (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, for bans proposed in legislation, there are quite a few examples. One of the recent failed (I think?) proposals for Colorado Assault Weapon bans covered standard hunting style pump action shotguns. (Based on the number of shells which can be theoretically loaded into a shotgun making it effectively a "high capacity magazine"). http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/03/01/popular-standard-shotgun-could-be-banned-under-proposed-bill/#.UTIVRocqeHY.twitter

The Illinois proposed AWB covered all 50 caliber rifles (including bolt action) http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=1294&GAID=11&GA=97&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=57470&SessionID=84

A different illinois ban explicitly covered pump action rifles that have the "features", or any handgun weighing more than 50 ounces, or any semi automatic handgun capable of accepting more than 10 rounds (IE, all of them) http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09700HB1263sam005&GA=97&SessionId=84&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=57242&DocNum=1263&GAID=11&Session=

California's in-force AWB bans all shotguns with a revolving cylinder (double action Revolvers although they do not need to be manually recocked are generally not considered "semi automatic", as the trigger handles the re-cock.)

bolt action rifles that accept magazines, if a "high capacity" magazine is inserted would be covered by some AWBs

You asked about laws, but as the word is both a legal and social term, the media and police describe many things as assault weapons (wwII era japanese bolt action rifle described by police as an assault weapon http://www.my9nj.com/story/23517647/gun-buyback-in-central-nj-nets-218-firearms

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, to take the statement in a different direction, "primarily but not exclusively to semi automatic weapons possessing certain features" - the not exclusively part would also include semi automatic weapons that DO NOT possess certain features (IE, AWBs that cover all semi-automatics) - Feinstein's 2013 ban would have covered the Glock 17 - the most popular handgun in the US, and used by basically every police department in the country, because the Glock 18 exists and is fully automatic, and the ban covered "semi automatic versions of fully automatic firearms). Also the Beretta 92, the CZ 75, and 1911s are available fully automatic, and would arguably be covered by that proposed ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Would like to propose updating article source citations to WP:CS1 standards and date "Month dd, yyyy". While doing this, I will also check the links and fix/report any broken.

Here is an example of where I fixed a link (and where I corrected a typo in my own fix. I do double-check them to ensure that they work.) Here is an example (scroll down to Ref #18) of where I standardized and expanded a citation. Compare how the References looked before I started working on the article with now, after standardization. (For example, compare Refs #12 through #16 before and after.) Lightbreather (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no objections although I consider citation templates to be a net minus. They make then uneditable for newer editors and editors who don't know the syntax for the template, and less flexible in general. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

BRD last sentence of Political and legislative issues section

Gentlemen (and ladies?): re revert of last sentence that I had added. The last sentence of section was:

"AR-15 rifles are a favorite for target shooting, hunting, and personal protection."

... citing source "Goode, Erica (December 15, 2012). "Rifle Used in Killings, America's Most Popular, Highlights Regulation Debate". New York Times. Retrieved January 3, 2012."

Then, I added:

They were also used in the Sandy Hook and Aurora mass shootings.

...citing the same source.

First of two objections given in edit summary was "Sentence implies that it is a defined firearm type rather than a variable term." So, I added "style" to sentence above to make clear that the source was writing about AR-15 style rifles. That addresses objection #1. As for objection #2, North: could you expand? Lightbreather (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Selecting dramatic misuses is a POV construction. That's like, in an article on Chevrolets, picking two dramatic drunk driving deaths/accidents, and putting in the article that Chavrolets were used in those into the Chevrolet article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, North, old friend! Hmmm. The story, with headline "Rifle Used in Killings, America’s Most Popular, Highlights Regulation Debate" is about the dichotomy (not sure that's the exact word that applies, but it's the best I can find right now) between the AR-15 style rifle's favored use by target shooters and hunters, and by mass shooters and other killers (like the Beltway sniper). Selecting only the part of this article that applies to the rifle's lawful uses seems rather POV too. Lightbreather (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, from a Wikipedia standpoint, I see it as a cardhouse built on a cardhouse build on a cardhouse. It even starts out as once-removed (not your fault) ......the beginning statement is not directly about the topic (which is a political and legal term with an immense range of meanings, not a type of firearm) and it is basically a statement about the commonality of a firearm previously classified as an "assault weapon" by a particular expired ban. Next is picking 3 mis-uses out the 10's of millions of uses. Third, I think that 2 of the 3 selected ones were not even AR-15's. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Not sure I fully follow you. At any rate, it's not up to us as editors to decide how many mis-uses is noteworthy, but whether sources say it's noteworthy, and many sources do. In fact, that's the very reason there are so many studies and stories about assault weapons, and why they're so debated here on WP and elsewhere.
I have to get ready for bed now. I might be able to resume discussion tomorrow, but I will be leaving mid-morning for a long weekend. Lightbreather (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
North: I am back from my trip and would like to resume our discussion. I would like to restore the sentence that I added, based on the reasons given previously. 1. It is from the same source (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/us/lanza-used-a-popular-ar-15-style-rifle-in-newtown.html) as the preceding sentence. 2. It rounds-out the point that source was making, without cherry-picking only the lawful-uses info. Lightbreather (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a dichotomy between AR-15 pattern rifles being so popular for both legal and illegal uses. If they're popular, e.g. in part because they've been the US military issue rifle for half a century (perhaps compare to the adaptation of bolt action rifles with full power cartridges), wouldn't we be surprised if they weren't used illegally quite a bit, to the extent rifles are used in crime in the first place? For a political analogy, look at Saturday night special, AKA guns poor people can afford. Or the slow, drawn out switch eventually by almost by everybody from revolvers to semi-auto handguns. Hga (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying there is a dichotomy: the source says it. To be specific, it says: "The increasing appearance of the [AR-15] in rampage killings... has also starkly highlighted the chasm between those who favor tighter regulations for firearms and those who believe that guns like the AR-15 are widely misunderstood and wrongly blamed for the actions of a few individuals."
The very first sentence of WP:CHERRYPICKING says, "In the context of editing an article, cherrypicking, in a negative sense, means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says." Our article includes the source's information that AR-15 (family, pattern, style, variant) rifles are used lawfully by millions, but it does NOT include its information that it is also used increasingly in rampage killings. For us to include the legal uses but not the criminal is to not fully inform the reader about part of the reason that the term assault weapon is "highly controversial" (which we state twice in this article). Lightbreather (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because one can find a source for something, doesn't mean it gets to go into the article. Especially when such sources are cherry-picked. An "AR-15 style weapon" could be anything. Anything at all, even a toy gun. It means nothing. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, I'm going to answer from two angles. The first from a Wikipedia standpoint, it has all of the issues which I previously noted and which you did not address. Also, sourcability is a requirement for inclusion not a reason for inclusion, and you seem to be arguing the latter. The statement merely is about the commonality of one firearm targeted by some "assault weapon" bans, and possibly the emblematic on in that respect. Also, creatively applying "style" as a means of including notorious incidents that did not even use an AR-15. And that links to the second angle. What is the purpose of making that creative effort and/or selecting someone what has done that? The article is about a political and legal term. North8000 (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, North. I thought I had addressed your issues. Could you specifically state them again, and give the policy or guideline you're judging them by? Also, re: the term "AR-15 style" - I was using the term from the source, but I'll be happy to use "AR-15 family," "AR-15 pattern," or "AR-15 variant" if any one of those is the preferred term on this article. (AR-15 uses all three. Perhaps I shouldn't assume: AR-15 in this article does not refer only to the Colt AR-15, does it?)
Barring new objections, I believe I've defended my addition well. May I restore it? Lightbreather (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The answer to that question is somewhat complicated. AR-15 is a trademarked term of Colt, but the word has largely been "kleenexed" by other manufacturers using the same design. I suspect if some other manufacturer really wanted to press the issue, the USPTO would say the term has been made generic, but as of this moment, technically AR15 is Colt only. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Gaijin. I guess I'll leave AR-15 "style" in the sentence I edited, but if someone changes it to "family," "pattern," or "variant," I'm OK with those, too. Lightbreather (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that's what Gaijin was saying. (correct me if I am wrong please, Gaijin) Using the word "style", or any of those other variants is inappropriate for reasons pointed out by North1000 above. I'm glad you are "ok" with it, but I do not see any consensus here to force this. Please leave it out. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I am not weighing in on if the the sentences should or should not be included, but technically unless all the rifles are Colts, they are actually AR 15 pattern and not actual AR15s. However, I think it can easily be argued that wikipedia should take the "kleenexed/xeroxed" route and simplify the sentence by saying AR15 instead of AR15 pattern/style. However, I think a good case can be made in either direction. I probably should not be counted towards consensus in either direction. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Lightbreather, the reasons for the term being "highly controversial" are not related to whether or not there have been mis-uses. The term is highly controversial because (as one side would put it) it is a term used to deceive people into thinking that "assault weapon" is a type of firearm rather than a completely fluid political term, and also that it is used to deceive people into thinking that the firearms involved are military firearms, and also to deceive people about what is written into a ban. E.G put a "sales title" of "assault weapon" on a ban, but then write the wording so that it bans everyday firearms. And this is without getting into the arguable area of the term being used to give the impression that civilian-legal versions (e.g the AR-15) are particularly powerful compared to other firearms such as grandpa's deer rifle. North8000 (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I hear you, North, but the article only describes one side of the controversy. That's my point, which perhaps I'm not doing a good job of explaining? Merriam-Webster defines controversy as "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views." (emphasis mine)
There are at least three things to consider when presenting the term "assault weapon" for our readers. One is its origin(s). We have shared that it may be a Sugarmann invention, or maybe the media's, or maybe the firearms industry itself. (We've introduced those opposing views.) Two is what it means by law - and that varies from law to law, but those laws seem to share some attributes. (Semi-automatics + magazines greater than 10 rounds + one or more other features.) Three is what it means in everyday usage among different groups or even among the same groups, but in different contexts. This is one area where the article is lacking. It leans toward the pro-gun view that the term was and still is meant to deceive.
WP:VERIFY says, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." Perhaps before the 1980s "assault weapon" had only one meaning, but it has several now, and we should tell our readers what those are and let THEM draw their own conclusions.
BTW: Happy Thanksgiving! Lightbreather (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be saying that there is a debate on whether or not the term has a consistent meaning. I don't see any claim of a consistent meaning. Even the rough one that you just gave conflicts with the expired federal AWB. North8000 (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Happy Thanksgiving! North8000 (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Squad "Assault" Weapon

I restored the following sentence to the end of the lead. It may be an unusual term or a debatable form of "Squad Automatic Weapon," but it is found in a number of sources going back at least to the 1980s and up through this year (2013). Typing "squad assault weapon" in the WP search box redirects you to the Squad automatic weapon page, and the Assault weapon (disambiguation) page lists "Squad Assault Weapon" (which of course likewise redirects).

Here are some sources:

Also, Google '"squad assault weapon" site:.mil'. You'll mostly find "M249 Squad Assault WEapon", now known as the M249 LMG. It was "squad assault weapon" on its WP page until 27 SEP 2004, when it was changed to "squad automatic weapon." Even the "squad automatic weapon" page started out, "A squad assault weapon..." until 24 FEB 2004. Lightbreather (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Too late in the day to get very intense about this, but I don't see how your sources sufficiently back this position.
As for the disambiguation page, I've already started the process to drop that entry along with the one for the StG 44. I have no opinion as of this time on the redirect. I seriously doubt they're authoritative under Wikipedia guidelines.
The first pdf is an individual officer's Army War College study project with a "views ... do not necessarily reflect the views of the" DoD etc. disclaimer on the very first page, from a colonel who by spring 1989 was very possibly removed from front line sorts of stuff. At least per this it would appear he was the "officer in charge of the XVIII Airborne Corps Tactical Command Post" during Desert Shield the next year, with some logistics duties as well. The 2nd is the equivalent of a popular magazine.
The Google search is devastating to this position, for when I go to the second page, the first that gives an accurate count of hits, they total 17 before duplicates were removed. Didn't even fill out that page. With duplicates there are 12,000 or so, but that appears to be because many are picture captions.
I'm no Wikilawyer, but this strikes me as insufficient; perhaps you can find something more authoritative? Hga (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
You're right - it is late for too much detail, and I'm working on my phone now, but I did find it in The Gun Buyers Digest to Assault Weapons by Jack Lewis. Can we resume discussion after Thanksgiving? I have doctor appt Friday morning, but am open after that. Lightbreather (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The Gun Digest Buyers book is the one by the previously discussed Phillip Peterson. The book you're referring to is the The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons, which "is all about true assault weapons?fully automatic, selective-fire or equipped with mission-specific features designed only for military and law enforcement applications." Which as a civilian source is less authoritative than military ones. As for Thanksgiving, no problem, I won't be making any content changes until people have had a chance to digest their turkey and get back to Wikipedia. Hga (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Hga. I did mean the book, and not the buyers guide. Lightbreather (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Either way, I think that that is a completely different meaning of the term.North8000 (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the legal and political term "assault weapon", not about military weapons. The SAW is a military automatic rifle. Yes, it's sometimes colloquially (and incorrectly) referred to as Squad Assault Weapon, but that's not the formal name for it, which is easily found on official military pages - http://www.army.mil/factfiles/equipment/individual/m249.html , http://www.marines.com/operating-forces/equipment/weapons/m249-squad-automatic-weapon-saw - rather than via generic .mil searches. Our obligation is to provide accurate, correct information, not to indulge mistaken transliterations of the acronym. This should be removed - it's inaccurate, and it's not what this article is about. Anastrophe (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Having manned a SAW for over 3 years, I have never heard it referred to as "Squad Assault Weapon", the correct term is "Squad Automatic Weapon".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I hear you, and the others who are stressing this point. My point is that even if they are properly called squad automatic weapons, there are numerous - including some reliable - sources who have called or continue to call them squad assault weapons, even if that is technically an incorrect term. This should be mentioned.
The article is about the legal and political use (or, per some sources, misuse) of the term "assault weapon." It discusses the possible origins of this use (or misuse). Use of the term in reference to military weapons - even if it wasn't always used correctly - have contributed and continue to contribute to the confusion. This should also be mentioned. It doesn't have to be a long, technical section. (I think for the average reader, the article already is so long and technical, and often redundant, that the main point gets lost.) It could be a brief paragraph of a few sentences. Lightbreather (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
But we don't know that those other uses of that term or similar terms are the origins of it as a political & legal term. IMHO if we really wanted to go there, we should be looking at it's first uses as a political/legal term, not at much heavier military weapon systems that have similar sounding names. But a well written couple of sentences mentioning the other uses of the term (without making "origin" claims) I think would be OK. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
My only quibble is that there are those who insist it wasn't originally a legal and political term, and if it was common in military usage before that would help support their position. But the picture I'm getting is that it wasn't used, except in things like infrequent "mistaken transliterations of the [SAW] acronym" for handguns, rifles, shotguns, and machine guns in the small arms category. It was used in not so well known infantry analogues to the assault gun, that is, things designed to deliver nasty payloads vs. purely kinetic effects, with the sole exception of the early '80 Close Assault Weapon System program, which was canceled before it got very far and therefore shouldn't have been very influential (but will survive on the disambiguation page, whereas I'm pretty sure we'll be dropping the SAW and StG 44 on it). Hga (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I guess where I'm coming from is, regardless of the origin(s) of the term, we should inform the reader about the other terms that this one/use might get conflated/confused with - regardless of the reasons why. To a gun expert or enthusiast, this stuff might seem obvious and irrelevant, but to the layperson it helps to answer the question: What is an assault weapon NOT (in this context)?


Not this one :-)


That is NOT to say that we can't or shouldn't inform the reader about the debated origins or likely reasons, but we should inform them of what to beware of. I have added a Proposal section to the Assault weapon disambiguation talk page that may (I hope) better explain what I'm saying. Lightbreather (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The key item is that it is a completely different meaning. Such things belong in the disambig page. North8000 (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure which device you're referring to with "it". Hga (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Me, too. (Re: "it") Lightbreather (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Roughly speaking, the military weapons (with that term) which are even heavier/more powerful than the military assault rifles. They are "twice removed" and not the same subject. North8000 (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The term being "assault weapon"? (Sorry to be so obtuse.) Hga (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
More precisely, military weapons which are even heavier/more powerful than the military assault rifles. Which includes the military ones being discussed above. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Assault Weapon has never been used by the military with reference to rifles and such. Assault Rifle has been used to describe a shoulder fired weapon chambered in an intermediate rifle cartridge (5.56, 5.45, 7.62X39, etc), but even then...it is rare. An Assault weapon in the military is more commonly used when referring to SMAWs (Shoulder launched Multi Purpose Assault Weapon), Dragons and other antitank/ bunker busting weapons. In fact the MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) for a Marine who is trained on and uses such launchers is properly called an "anti-tank assault man". The term assault weapon to refer to semiautomatic rifles that look like select fire military rifles came from Gun Digest in the early 80's. Much of the industry's aggressive marketing at the time lead the professional bedwetters like the brady bunch to seize the term and use it against us. If you look at the "named" guns in the early attempts at legislation, they simply went down the list in alphabetical order of the firearms featured in the Guides without knowing anything about them beyond appearance.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
While I doubt we could find it, I'd be interested in any evidence the gun grabbers got the "assault weapon" term from Gun Digest's publications. Two quibbles IMHO to the rest of what you say: "assault rifle" was by far the most common term in those days to my memory (I don't even remember "assault weapon" being used, I wasn't paying attention to the Gun Digest empire by that time), with we've seen occasional assault pistol, handgun, and shotgun usages. Which makes sense, because they were semi-auto versions of assault rifles (or sometimes modern battle rifles)). This was fairly well established by the late '70s, at least in the survivalist community. E.g., Mell Tappan's still in print 1976 Survival Guns, and influenced by him and others, non-specialist (an ecologist) Bruce D. Clayton's 1980 Life After Doomsday refers to the HK91 as an "heavy assault rifle" (based on the G3 full power cartridge battle rifle) and the AR-180 (which I would call ArmaLite's atonement for the AR-15, but was instead a 5.56mm rifle not encumbered by the AR-15 license agreement with Colt) as a "light assault rifle".
In fact, thinking about it, the only time someone in the pro-gun side of things would be likely to say "assault weapon" prior to the politicization of the term is when describing them overall. The more specific assault rifle was the natural for rifles, etc.
Josh Sugarmann, a professional who's not a bedwetter, but rather the most dangerous thinker of the gun grabbers, planned the campaign against assault rifles including the conflation with full-auto firearms, and is on record the year before the Stockton school shooting saying "Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.". That's from his 1988 Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, showing the gun grabbers had started using the term before the Stockton shooting got the campaign going. Hga (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"Squad Assault Weapon" is an incorrect interpretation/expansion of the acronym. The firearm is not named "Squad Assault Weapon", it is named "Squad Automatic Weapon". The recently added (and now reverted) edit stated "The misnamed Squad Assault Weapon [...]". The two sources cited were simply two misuses of the term; they did not establish that the firearm is "misnamed", only that two sources can be found that misuse the expanded acronym. As such, it's original research to claim that the weapon is "misnamed". This has been going back and forth long enough; the very first words of this article make it clear that the article is about the political and legal term "assault weapon". It is not the place to conflate misuses of an acronym as indicating that a military weapon is an assault weapon within the context of the legal and political term this article is about. It belongs on the disambiguation page. Anastrophe (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Back on the 27th of this month, editor lightbreather wrote

"Also, Google '"squad assault weapon" site:.mil'. You'll mostly find "M249 Squad Assault WEapon", now known as the M249 LMG. It was "squad assault weapon" on its WP page until 27 SEP 2004, when it was changed to "squad automatic weapon." Even the "squad automatic weapon" page started out, "A squad assault weapon..." until 24 FEB 2004. "

As has previously been discussed, that an article started out with incorrect information which was later corrected is indicative of, well, nothing more than that incorrect information was corrected. Regarding the google search tendered, it offers up 43 results from military sites. Yet if we use the correct search - '"squad automatic weapon" site:.mil', 1470 results are returned. If the intent is to show that the military use a certain term to describe a weapon, it's clear that Squad Automatic Weapon is by far the more commonly used term. Not to mention the two links I provided a few days ago to the official military pages providing the name "Squad Automatic Weapon". SMAW remains in the article, because it actually is named that. I fail to see why we must indulge a misuse of an acronym as somehow being informative, when we have an example which satisfies the military use of the term 'assault weapon' in the article. Anastrophe (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I attempted to address this on the disamb page. There seems to be a loose tendency to muddy-up the links with all sorts of irrelevent information that have very little to do with the search. I think this trend has been fixed over there, but perhaps something similar should be done here. Unlear and improper acronyms should be removed everywhere they are found. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Are (US) military weapons with the words "assault weapon" anti-tank or more than that?

Mike Searson asserts that "anti-tank/bunker busters/anti-material weapons are all essentially the same category" and asks for sources to the contrary. Going through the disambiguation page, we have:

FGM-172 SRAW (Short-Range Assault Weapon): It was intended to be an top down anti-armor missile with useful features like fire and forget, but its only operator, the USMC, decided not to adopt it for that and all type A copies that had been supplied with the anti-tank warhead were retrofitted to the B type which per the page has "a multi-purpose blast-fragmentation warhead, and is intended for use as an assault weapon".

Heckler & Koch HK CAWS (Close Assault Weapon System): A select fire shotgun for a canceled program.

M202 FLASH (FLame Assault SHoulder Weapon): Is the rocket launcher flamethrower replacement I mentioned. The prototype could fire a M72 LAW rocket but that was dropped in the production model. It has a nasty incendiary payload (thickened triethylaluminum). While it can obviously be used against vehicles, I've never gotten the impression that its primary role was anti-tank.

Rifleman's Assault Weapon: a 1990s USMC RPG with an 1-kg high-explosive squash head (HESH) warhead, which had been a popular British anti-armor warhead type, but nowadays "are still carried today by armoured engineer vehicles; they are typically intended for use against fortifications rather than armoured fighting vehicles." Modern high explosive anti-tank weapons use shaped charges or like the SRAW above an explosively formed penetrator; everything in the Wikipedia indicates this RPG was intended more for the anti-material than anti-armor role, although it was definately useful for the latter.

Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon: "is a shoulder-launched rocket weapon, based on the Israeli B-300, with the primary function of being a portable assault weapon (e.g. bunker buster) and a secondary anti-armor rocket launcher." It has three warhead types, anti-material and light armor, anti-armor shaped charge (24 inches of rolled homogeneous steel), and a thermobaric warhead. USMC again, and it's a really serious weapon, effective range up to 500 meters, 60° cone backblast deadly to 30 meters and very bad up to 90 meters (!).

Then the disambiguation page lists the StG-44 and a program to develop a new Urban Assault Weapon; again dual use, perhaps more anti-armor than anti-material, with a HESH warhead.

I submit the above cannot support a claim that "The term "assault weapon" is used to refer to anti-tank explosive based weapons that are used by the military...." (emphasis added) as the article currently has it.

As a side note, I find it interesting that with the exception of the FLASH every one of these that was fielded was procured by the USMC. Hga (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

With the possible exception of the prototype shotgun that never saw production, each of those is an anti-armor or bunker busting weapon. In the case of the Stg-44, it is a case of piss poor editing and misuse of the term. Basically these types of weapons are not meant for shooting people. They are used vs. armor or fortifications. Anyone who knows anything about firearms should know the difference. Wiki is not considered a reliable source, either.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that none of these blasting weapons are anything like the rifles that are banned by various Assault Weapon laws. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

removing unsourced

Lightbreather when you think something is outsourced, please mark it with a citation needed tag rather than just removing it straight out so that we can find a source. (Unless its an obvious BLP or vandalism issue). Gaijin42 (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Gaijin. Regarding the statement needing a source: "[the new bill] required registration of any grandfathered weapons under the National Firearms Act." I see you've added this "http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4254274" and this "http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/05/feinsteins-new-gun-ban-bill-likely-to-be-introduced-january-22/" The C-SPAN clip predates the introduction of S150 by 34 days and the Daily Caller story predates it by 19 days. Neither the Jan. 24 or the March 14 version of the bill includes language that supports the statement, as far as I can see. I could be missing something, so please let me know.
Assuming for now that I'm not missing something, and that the article is about the term assault weapon - this statement does not seem to belong in this article. Lightbreather (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, the first falls under WP:PRIMARY, and the second ends with "Contact your members of Congress," and "SUPPORT THE NRA! Click here to join..." Those aren't very good sources for such a controversial topic, IMHO. Lightbreather (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
You are refuting a primary source, with a primary source. By definition, the exact effects of a bill that was not passed, indeed that was never even voted on, or gone through the amendment process is murky at best. We have direct statements from the author and primary motivating force of the bill repeatedly saying that they intended it to require NFA registration. If we want to get technical and included the words "intended to" that is fine. There is no separate article for the 2013 proposed ban. per WP:SUMMARY describing the ban here (as well as probably in the FAWB article) is well within policy. However, if you feel the exiting sourcing is insufficient

Gaijin42 (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Getting ready to go to bed, but I'll be back tomorrow or Friday. In the meantime, I'm not following "You are refuting a primary source, with a primary source." Can you explain? Lightbreather (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
You object to the interview by Feinstein because you say it is WP:PRIMARY. Your evidence to the contrary is one version of the text of the bill, which is also primary. Arguably the Feinstein source is actually secondary, since it is from CSPAN, and from an interview with a reporter, but in any case there are several other sources I have listed above. To most strictly follow the sources we could say something like "Feinstein stated her intention that her bill would require taxation and registration under the National Firearms Act of any grandfathered weapons defined as Assault Weapons, although the text of the bill reported to the Senate Judiciary committee did not include that language." Or something. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Gajin. No time to reply right now except to say that I am off to the dentist, so I will re-read and reply later today or tomorrow. Thanks again. Lightbreather (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I objected to the clip from the interview because when I used transcripts from interviews before (specifically, a PBS transcript of a PBS news interview) I was told "Interviews are always primary." The section we're discussing begins, "On January 24, 2013, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013." The text of the bill cited in the article is from the Library of Congress THOMAS site that makes federal legislative information freely available to the public. It is the text as it was introduced (Jan. 24) to the Senate, regardless of what Feinstein might have had on her wish list before then. I know some believe she is on a mission to register and/or confiscate assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, but that hasn't been a subject in a preponderance of reliable, verifiable sources.

So, IMHO, the information doesn't belong in this article. The article is expressly about the political and legal term "assault weapon," and, at least according to some of the active editors here, it is also about U.S. assault weapons laws. Feinstein's intentions are not mentioned in a preponderance of reliable, verifiable sources of information about the AWB 2013 bill . Other details of the bill are in a preponderance of reliable, verifiable sources - neutral, mainstream publications and those with editorial boards on both sides of the issue - and those seem most appropriate for a section about this bill. Lightbreather (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

We have two different sources from feinstein saying that she wanted to include NFA registration. That is not "believing she is on a mission", it is explicitly stated by her, on her own website, and in interviews. It got cut from the text of the law - but such things are very commonly introduced as amendments or secondary bills. My proposed wording above is 100% accurate to all of the sources.As an aside, reliable sources are explicitly NOT required to be neutral. In any case, since we have progun sources saying this, and feinstein herself (certainly not pro gun) both sides of the debate agree that that was her intent. Further, one source choosing to comments about a particular feature, but another source choosing NOT to comment on that feature in now way contradicts the first source. Do you have any sources saying that the bill did not, or that feinstein did not intend it to include NFA registration? In any case, it does not appear that there is consensus for removal of this sourced information at this time. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I hear you, Gaijin, I simply disagree about including it, that's all. However, if it's going to be included, the sources don't work as the paragraph is written. Let me re-read it and think on it, OK? Lightbreather (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The proximate issue is removal of unsourced material by fiat. The process is that if you believe something needs to be cited, you identify it with the "citation needed" tag, so that other editors may respond to the request, and find appropriate citations. After some interval (this part is vague), the challenged material may be removed if a citation has not been tendered. Typically I don't remove material that has been challenged until at least a month has passed since the tag was applied. With the exception of obvious vandalism, or text added that a Reasonable Person can see is inappropriate, we don't just remove content without first tagging it. Anastrophe (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Anastrophe. I understood Gaijin's fine, brief explanation at the top of the discussion, only his responses have brought up more questions, that's all. Lightbreather (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
My point is simply that this discussion might have been avoided had the cite tag been applied in the first place. Anastrophe (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Has the text been replaced back into the article and tagged? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It is replaced and not tagged, since I added several refs. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

New York definition of assault weapon - and scope of article

I have been working on simplifying the Differing state law definitions section. Most were pretty straightforward, except for the New York bullet item. Here is the DIFF between my simplified version and the "undid" version. Comments, anyone? Just in case I've got it wrong, this article is about the U.S. legal and political term assault weapon, and not about the assault weapons laws themselves, right? If we're going into the details of proposed, failed, active, and expired LAWS, I propose we change the title of the article. Lightbreather (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The term "assault weapon" is defined, variously so, by the different laws that regulate or prohibit them in some jurisdictions. So it's a meaningless distinction to say that the article is about assault weapons vs. the term "assault weapon" vs. the laws themselves. Assault weapons don't exist except as the laws define them. So, no, the title of the article should not be changed, and, yes, it's appropriate for the article to cover the different laws in a fair amount of detail. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
So the article is about civilian "assault weapons," and not just the term "assault weapon"? Lightbreather (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that it is about the political/legal term which inevitably includes definitions created by laws, but otherwise this is not the place to fully cover the laws. And this the political and legal term is usually about civilian firearms, but a common use of the term is to give the impression that the civilian ones are military ones. Also since this is a term of confusion, a brief mention of what it is not (but has a similar names as or is often conflated with) is also useful to the coverage of the topic. North8000 (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC).North8000 (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
"...this is not the place to fully cover the laws." That's what I thought, so earlier today I added a "Main article" link to the top of the Differing state law definitions section to link to Gun laws in the United States by state. (There was already a "Main article" link to the AWB article at the top of the Expired U.S. Federal Assault Weapons Ban section, so I followed that example.) Lightbreather (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The article is about assault weapons, the semi-automatic civilian firearms that are sometimes regulated or prohibited. So it's appropriate for the article to describe all relevant aspects of this, very much including the different laws. And it can also discuss firearms that are *not* assault weapons, if that helps the reader understand the subject. As far as the term "assault weapon", the article should talk about that too, since it's both relevant and controversial. Not to get too sidetracked by the distinction, but the firearms are one thing and the term is another, and strictly speaking the article is more about the firearms than anything else. In conclusion, I don't see any major issues with the scope of the subject matter currently included in the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with where you ended up, but not with where you started. North8000 (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I reject the proposal. No rationale has been offered as to why it must be one or the other, rather than both. It's entirely appropriate for an article to go into some detail about relevant facts and issues associated with the topic of the article, even if some facts and issues are covered in greater detail elsewhere. Anastrophe (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

strong oppose the definition of assault weapons is inexorably tied with the laws that create those definitions. Even if it were not so, per WP:SUMMARY putting detailed information about the laws that affect assault weapons on the article about assault weapons is entirely appropriate, and would be lost in the high level summary article of gun laws in the US. I do see some value in disambiguating away the military assault weapons (SAW, etc) - but since there are reliable sources (including most notably pro-control sources) saying that the terms AW was specifically popularized in order to confuse the public about the nature of the weapons there is a strong argument to keep that content here as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This entire discussion is a waste of time. "No rationale has been offered as to why it must be one or the other, rather than both." --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what the question is. If it is to change the title of the article, (the only thing actually framed as a question but which looks more like an argument in a discussion about another topic than a serious question)then I certainly Oppose. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This is only a discussion I started after an edit I made was undone. The edit I made simplified the article's summary of what an assault weapon is under New York law. Here is the before-my-edit text:

  • In California, there are three categories of assault weapons: by name, by "series" (AK or AR-15), and by characteristic.
  • In Connecticut, assault weapons are selective-fire firearms (capable of fully automatic, semi-automatic or burst fire); semi-automatic firearms specified by name; and semi-automatic firearms with specific characteristics.
  • In Massachusetts, assault weapons have the same definitions as the expired federal ban of 1994.
  • In New York, an assault weapon is defined as "Any semiautomatic centerfire or rimfire rifle or semiautomatic shotgun which has one or more ... features, ..., Any shotgun with a revolving-cylinder magazine, ..., (or,) Any part, or combination of parts, designed or redesigned or intended to readily convert a rifle or shotgun into an assault weapon." The New York Safe Act of 2013 legislated a stricter definition of assault weapons, and immediately banned weapons in that category, including even magazines used by police officers. Considered assault weapons are: semi-automatic pistols and rifles with detachable magazines and one military-style feature, and semi-automatic shotguns with one military-style feature.

The boldened summary is the item in question. First, note how hard it is too understand. That is old law info (prior to this year) mixed in with the new. And it includes a distracting statement about magazines. Here is the summary item I wrote to replace it, that was undone:

  • In California, there are three categories of assault weapons: by name, by "series" (AK or AR-15), and by characteristic.
  • In Connecticut, assault weapons are selective-fire firearms (capable of fully automatic, semi-automatic or burst fire); semi-automatic firearms specified by name; and semi-automatic firearms with specific characteristics.
  • In Massachusetts, assault weapons have the same definitions as the expired federal ban of 1994.
  • In New York, assault weapons are semi-automatic pistols and rifles with detachable magazines and one "military style" feature, and semi-automatic shotguns with one "military style" feature.

So, although my question was rhetorical, part of a discussion to explain why the edit was a good one, I think it's worth asking again, or similarly (based on some of the comments and reverts). Since this article is about the term "assault weapon," and since the details of U.S. assault weapons laws (federal, state, and local) are elsewhere in the encyclopedia: Is this article meant to introduce those details and discuss them (or to re-introduce them and discuss them again or further)? If so, I think the title and lead should be changed. If not, then I think we should edit the article to remove some of the details of the law that don't have to do with the term "assault weapon" and direct the reader elsewhere for those details. I think it's a good and valid question. Lightbreather (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assault_weapon/Archive_3&oldid=1077396015"