Talk:Assault weapon/Archive 2

Recent edits reducing this article
In a series of changes yesterday, anonymous editor removed quite a bit of the contents of this article, reducing it from this to this. Refer to the article history page for more details, including the edit summaries, of which here is one example: "remove entire section - either unreferenced, or blatant synthesis of material to advance a point". I am starting this talk page section to encourage all interested editors to discuss these substantial changes, which reduced the article from about 2,600 words to about 500 words. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can agree that the previous article was in need of a reworking, but I am not certain this is what it needed. This current version appears to be POV pushing.  EricSerge (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at this some more, there were also some edits done at that time that substantially changed the lead section of the article, such as this one. While some of the new material in the lead section provides helpful information about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 2004, I'm not convinced that removing the old lead paragraph is helpful.  It had been developed over a pretty long series of back and forth edits, as a neutral but informative summary of the concept, which is by no means confined to the expired federal ban.  We need to be particularly careful about this article in general, and the lead in particular, because this is a very controversial subject, and a lot of people will be referring to this article, especially when assault weapons are mentioned in the news, as shown rather dramatically here.  I would encourage other editors to give their opinions in this talk page section. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The article in its current form is clearly biased and written in a pseudo-neutral tone from the viewpoint of someone who opposes a ban on assault weapons. The original article should be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.75.23.198 (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The current version has some issues and needs work, but the changes last summer got rid of an immense amount of problems, so it was far worse before then. This is a term with no real definition (unlike Assault rifle) and so is subject to ever-changing definitions depending on who is using the term for what purpose.  For example, under the described expired federal law, pistols routinely carried by police were defined as assault weapons.     The article must come to grips with the fact that this is a term with ever-changing meanings, not a class of firearms.  Before it was fixed, it has severe problems in that area. North8000 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Assault weapons are back in the news, resulting once again in a large number of page views for this article. I still advocate more or less restoring the lead section to the way it was from mid-December 2008 to mid-July 2012. That was a much better summary of the subject -- easier to understand, and more neutrally worded, and without the current excessive emphasis on the details of the expired federal ban. One version of this can be seen here. I'm not saying it was perfect, but it's better than the way it is now. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure. For a term which has a newly invented meaning every time that it is used, it's certainly worth noting the most notable definition which was the expired federal law.   Also the most common-meaning definition which is a synonym for assault rifle. The large block of material deleted two edits back did have some of the noted problems, but it also explained the attributes used in the most notable definition and their intended purposes.  The first two phrases contained the definitions from two extremes, now someone just knocked out one of them creating a worse imbalance.  But the version that you noted does look better in some respects. North8000 (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The version I linked to does specifically mention the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, in the first paragraph. And part of the problem, I think, is that "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" mean two different things, but are often confused with each other.  (Assault weapons are semi-automatic firearms with certain features, and assault rifles are fully-automatic, or selective fire, firearms that are actually used by the military.) — Mudwater (Talk) 00:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree.   But I think that it should do more than mention the federal law; it gives probably the most notable of all of the varying definitions. North8000 (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I started on an effort to wikify the "attribute" material.  I also brought in the lead sentences from the version that you recommended. North8000 (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. And as always, other editors are encouraged to give their opinions too.  Again, this is a very controversial subject.  It's important for the article to be as neutral and balanced as possible.  And when the subject is more in the news, as it is now, there will tend to be more edits by anonymous or occasional editors who are pushing a particular point of view, so we need to watch out for that also. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I made an effort. That attributes section is still ragged, but I stripped out most of the commentary type wording, and made it a attributes section rather than in a "politics" section. North8000 (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't that section say something about the "shoulder-thing that goes up". I heard it was a motivation for the '94 ban.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:279:C91D:3CA5:3950:FF05 (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
Assault weapons are not defined as being fully-automatic per federal law. To claim that they are is simply pushing a POV, trying to conflate full-auto machine guns with assault weapons. Hence the need for an NPOV warning to readers. Have tagged this article. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The point is that they have no specific definition.  You are right about the definition under the expired federal law, and I agree that its definition should be included as one of the more prominent definitions.  There is also a common meaning (be it right or wrong but certainly conflicting) that it includes full auto firearms.  So there are numerous conflicting definitions and no consistent primary one.  IMHO the article should convey this, and not state that there is A (singular) definition or meaning.  Could you clarify what your thoughts are on this? North8000 (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are specific definitions. Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers to firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon, under the sunset federal Assault Weapons Law, as well as under several still-existing state laws that were derived from the earlier federal ban.  (Federal law required 2 such cosmetic features; some state laws now require only 1 such cosmetic feature to be defined as an assault weapon.)  But, as you have worded the introduction now, a reader is erroneously led to believe an assault weapon is always nothing but a full-auto machine gun firing an intermediate cartridge, which it is not. This has the appearance of pushing a POV agenda on Wikipedia readers.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The lead paragraph of the article does convey that there are numerous conflicting definitions and no consistent primary one. Re "automatic", the article cites an online dictionary giving a definition for the term which includes that usage. You placed the NPOV tag; how do you suggest the article be improved regarding your concern? Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * My previous edit clearly stated the presence of conflicting definitions (here), but was reverted by North8000. Assault Weapons does not always mean full-auto machine guns, unlike the present wording implies.  The present wording pushes a POV agenda, to conflate full auto machine guns with civilian-owned semi-automatic rifles.  The article should be improved to state the difference clearly.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Miguel Escopeta, I think that I 100% overall agree with your intent. IMHO the edits that you made accidentally worked against your own intent.  So IMHO I'm working towards your goal and you are accidentally working against your goal. :-) :-). North8000 (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course it needs improvements. North8000 (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you actually read the change (here), or did you read the html script of the diff? If you read the actual formatted text (here), rather than just reading the html script diff, I believe you will see that what I wrote was, and is, very clear.  And, no, I didn't accidentally write my edit, but was very careful in wording it correctly.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Miguel Escopeta I did. In order to avoid the mistaken conflation (as we both wish to do)one must provide information on the inconsistency. IMHO your post inadvertently does the opposite by (in essence) erroneously saying that the dicotomy does not exist.  Since I think that we are in agreement on the big picture, can we just move on and work on some improved wording?  Thanks.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * But it doesn't exist in either sunset Federal Law or under still existing state laws. There is no fundamental difference among these laws. They all state that assault weapons specifically are not fully-automatic firearms.  On the other hand, leaving the article the way it is pushes an agenda of conflating military fully-automatic machine guns with civilian semi-automatic firearms, by stating that all assault weapons are fully-automatic.  Our goal should be to inform readers, not confuse and mislead them into thinking that assault weapons are fully-automatic when they are not.  This distinction is sorely needed, as many readers come to Wikipedia to form opinions, and the article should be factual.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you just said 100%. Now what? The reality is that the common meaning of "assault weapon" for what is in those laws and firearms in civilian hands is "full auto:" which conflicts with the realities of both the laws and what's in common civilian possession. We must inform the readers on this mistaken impression; IMHO your edit does the opposite, it erroneously says that the mistaken impression does not exist by saying that the common meaning is semi-auto. . North8000 (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The common meaning is semi-auto. This is the law in several states, as well as in the sunset Federal Assault Weapons law.  It is also what is actually in civilian hands throughout the country, totaling well over 10 million firearms among the estimated 350+ million firearms.  Common usage is clearly semi-auto.  That said, there is also a much smaller usage to conflate the term with fully-automatic, for a variety of reasons. But this usage for reasons of conflation is already documented in the article. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ask 10 people who are unfamiliar with firearms and I'll bet 9 will mistakenly tell you that the "assault weapon bans" are to outlaw guns that shoot as "machine guns" and that mass shootings etc. are committed with guns that shoot as "machine guns". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is even more reason not to promulgate ignorance. Facts as verified by cited sources clearly establish that assault weapons are not machine guns.  We should not be trying to push an agenda to conflate assault weapons with machine guns in a continued push towards public ignorance.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hatnote wording
I think I have to agree with Miguel, Petri and Mudwater on the hatnote wording......I think that the shorter version without the shoulder mounted rocket launchers is better. North8000 (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely missed the disambiguation page. That's what I get for editing before caffeine intake :-).  I agree, too, belatedly! Yaf (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Only problem is those are actually named assault weapons in the more original use of the term--i.e. shoulder mounted weapons used in military assaults--that predate the use of the politico-legal term. I agree the use of a disambiguation page is probably more appropriate than the by-name inclusion of assault weapons in the hat note. --Deathbunny (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
There have been a lot of debates and questions raised saying that there is some flaw in the wording, but I really haven't seen any disputes or even discussions or even accusations regarding the neutrality of the article. Should we remove the tag? North8000 (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think so. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think so, too. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * At the moment there does not seem to be a dispute about the article's neutrality. On the other hand I keep getting the feeling that one could break out at any moment.  I'm okay with removing the tag for now, we can always put it back whenever we want to. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I took it out. North8000 (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of a Beretta pistol as an assault weapon?
Hey all, I removed an image of a Beretta pistol that was being used to illustrate this article here. The caption of the image reads: "Beretta model 1934 pistol, defined as an "assault weapon" in some legislation under consideration due to being semi-automatic or having a detachable magazine". I removed the image due to the lack of citation for the caption, as well as my belief that, based on the common definition of assault weapon we use on the article the Baretta clearly does not qualify. One particular piece of legislation using a different definition is not significant enough to merit a dedicated picture using that alternate definition. My removal was reverted by North8000, who says he/she will provide a citation, however even if that citation is reliable my other concern about undue weight remains. I bring this up for discussion here. Prodego talk  22:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * First, responding on your note on my talk page, I agree with your statement here about the caption. Your last statement didn't indicate that and was an edit summary for the deletion of the image.  It will be easy to source and I'll do that.   Happy to discuss anyway.


 * There have been many instances of proposed assault weapon legislation restricting such firearms based on being semiautomatic, detachable magazine, or magazine with more then 10 rounds. IMHO its a key piece of information to communicate the variability of the term. Maybe a pistol that has an >10 round magazine as banned by the 1994 law would be good too. Sincerely,  North8000 (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I could agree to a picture of a pistol which would be defined as an assault weapon under the 1994 US assault weapons ban, since that was major gun legislation (assuming a good citation). An image of a pistol that takes a magazine is that is banned isn't relevant, as that is not defined as an assault weapon. But unless it falls under the national definition of assault weapon for some major country, I don't think it is important enough to include. Prodego  talk  22:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The state of New York just defined an assault weapon as a weapon with one scary thing rather than two. I did some short checking, but does anyone want to look into it and see if a picatinny rail is counted as one of the scary things?  If that is the case, this Beretta would be an assault weapon. Ryan Vesey 23:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Rails are not scary things. Its typically pistol grip, adjustable stock, threaded barrel, bayonet lug, grenade launcher. The new NY ban also adds a second vertical grip for rifles. For pistols there is a separate list which often includes barrel shroud or vertical foregrip (to assist in using a stockless ak47/ar15 two handed).  Gaijin42 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So since the agreement appears to be that this pistol does not qualify as an assault weapon anywhere, can we remove the picture? Prodego  talk  06:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In the ref that I added it would be (recently state-wide floated legislation) because it has a detachable magazine. But a good compromise might be subbing in a common pistol which holds more than 10 rounds, then it would be "three times over" applicable.  North8000 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that that gun would be banned by the Illinois legislation, but the Illinois legislation did not define assault weapons. It simply banned all semi-automatic weapons. If we want to display a pistol that is an assault weapon, either use an AR/AK pistol, or TEC9 or something, or at least a contrived "normal" pistol that has a barrel shroud or forward grip. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe the wording could use a tweak (e.g. "banned or restricted by assault weapon legislation") but I think that you're splitting linguistic hairs.  For example, even the the 1994 federal assault weapon ban was sold, described and had a sales/common title as "assault weapons" but didn't explicitly say that the banned/restricted firearms were "assault weapons".  So by that standard, even the military-looking rifles which it banned it technically did not define as being "assault weapons".   So those other pictures are in the same boat.    North8000 (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Something that happened under the 94 bans, I would say do qualify as an assault weapon even if not technically defined since that was an "Assault Weapons Ban". The illinois ban has nothing to do with assault weapons of any kind. It bans all semi-automatic weapons. Therefore its relevance to this article is 0. By your logic, every semi-auto mag pistol in the world would qualify to serve as that picture. If you want to use that picture in the Gun Control article, then it makes complete sense. To rephrase : Although the illinois ban covers assault weapons, it is not an assault weapons ban. If illinois banned ALL firearms, would you say that a picture of a musket was now appropriate here? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If it was titled and described/marketed as being about assault weapons, and it covered muskets or slingshots, then I'd say yes, a picture of a musket and a slingshot would be appropriate here. And such would illustrate the issue with the term....that it has no specific meaning and so is subject to invention of multitudes of meanings.  North8000 (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Many places ban all guns, or ban guns based on particular criteria. However, if they aren't calling it an "assault weapon" then it isn't relevant to this article. The citation provided by North8000 to the image caption does not support the statement of the caption. Specifically, the source does not state the Beretta model 1934 pistol is defined as an "assault weapon". I would like this misleading image removed immediately.  Prodego  talk  18:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How would that be any different than the other 3 pictures?  Event the 1994 federal assault weapons law did not specifically define them as assault weapons. North8000 (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The 1994 assault weapons ban states:
 * "Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: "(30) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means...". Prodego  talk  19:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

NYTime
Discussed a lot above, but here is a nice major source with an overview of the difficulty in defining the word assault weapon http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/us/even-defining-assault-weapons-is-complicated.html Gaijin42 (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead section
There is currently a content dispute about the lead section of the Assault weapon article. All editors are invited to participate in the discussion. This is a serious subject, and the article is getting a lot of page views because of recent events. — Mudwater (Talk) 18:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Assault weapons are semi-automatic. Assault rifles are full-automatic. The two terms are often confused. The lead section of the article should explain this in simple, direct terms. In my opinion it currently does not. And starting the article by saying that it's a term that has been given many different meanings is unhelpful, I think. While the exact definition does vary from law to law, it's actually pretty clear what an assault weapon is in general terms. I therefore propose a major rewrite of the lead section. Something along these lines would be good, in my opinion. I consider this to be a working draft, and I haven't bothered putting in any links:


 * An assault weapon is a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms. An assault weapon has a detachable magazine, and it usually has a pistol grip; sometimes it has certain other features such as a folding stock, a flash suppressor, a bayonet mount, or a grenade launcher.  Most assault weapons are rifles, but some are pistols or shotguns.


 * "Assault weapon" is not a technical term. The meaning of the term is set by various laws that limit or prohibit their manufacture, importation, sale, or possession.  These laws include the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban, as well as some state and local laws.  Each of these laws defines the term in a slightly different way.


 * Assault weapons are often confused with assault rifles. The two are similar in appearance but different in function.  Since an assault weapon is semi-automatic, it fires one round (bullet) each time the trigger is pulled.  Assault rifles are actual military weapons that are either fully-automatic, i.e. they fire multiple rounds continuously when the trigger is pulled, or selective-fire, i.e. they fire a burst of several rounds when the trigger is pulled.


 * Whether or not assault weapons should be legally restricted more than other firearms, how they should be defined, and even whether or not the term "assault weapon" should be used at all, are questions subject to considerable debate as part of the arguments of gun politics in the United States.

Cheers. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree it needs cleanup, but we should not be pretending that assault rifle has a consistent definition. We should give its various definitions and common usages. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "Assault rifle"? Don't you mean "assault weapon"?  Thus inadvertently demonstrating the point that the two terms are often confused?  If yes, I'm not pretending.  That's really what it means.  — Mudwater (Talk) 02:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Agree that "starting the article by saying that it's a term that has been given many different meanings is unhelpful". A good lead must state what the term means. Webster's Dictionary featured the term in their "trend watch" today with the blurb: "Lookups spiked on December 18, after the devastating events in Newtown, CT, the national conversation included many references to the kind of weapon used in this and other recent shootings, and to the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. An assault rifle, also called an assault weapon, is defined as "any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use." It is a translation of Sturmgewehr, the name of a German rifle used in World War II." That is the description of the term as used. Others argue that the term cannot include automatic weapons, as it was defined by U.S. legislation. So is the definition prescriptive, descriptive, or does the article give both? --Cornellier (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The Webster's Dictionary writeup does what a lot of other sources have done -- it confuses the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon". The article should clarify the misconception rather than perpetuating it.  An assault rifle is any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use.  That's covered in its own article, assault rifle.  An assault weapon is always semi-automatic.  It's the thing that's restricted or banned by the laws that define it, like the expired federal ban, or the current law in California.  The two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but that's simply not correct.  (I guess that means I'm taking a more prescriptive approach, but I'm also advocating explaining the difference in the lead, which is descriptive.)  I know I'm biased, but I really think my proposed rewrite explains this quite nicely, and is also written in a way that's considerably more direct and less labored than any previous version of the lead.  You can see a refined version, with links, here. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We need to understand that it is a term with many widely varying meanings, and no consistent meaning. Even the most notable definition (the expired federal ban) did not define the term, the definition has been taken to mean firearms restricted by that "assault weapons ban"; by that definition pistol configurations commonly carried by police are defined as "assault weapons". And even in that case "assault weapon" is not in the name of the law, it started as a marketing term which the became a common name for it. So I think that we need to cover it as a term, and  cover all of it's common conflicting meanings, including the "common (mis)impression"  meaning  which is a synonym for Assault rifle.  (by North8000)
 * "Assault weapon" is not a term with many widely varying meanings. It's a term with one specific meaning, and only minor variations between the different laws that define it.  It's also a term that's often confused with a different term, "assault rifle".  The current version of the lead section adds to the confusion.  The proposed rewrite fixes the confusion, by explaining it.  And I am hoping that more editors, besides the three of us, will add their opinions here. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, when president Obama, when talking about new potential legislation said that these (paraphrasing) "these belong in hands of the military, not on the streets" which "single" definition was he talking about? The non-military semi-automatic firearms, or the already heavily-restricted full-auto-capable military Assault rifle?
 * He was talking about the non-military semi-automatic firearms, definitely -- the assault weapons, as clearly described by the rewritten lead section that I'm advocating. He's said that he wants to reinstate the federal ban.  The full-auto-capable military assault rifles are already heavily restricted, as you say, and President Obama knows that. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is Gun Digest authoritative? Their Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons 7th Edition describes itself as being "all about true assault weapons...fully automatic, selective-fire or equipped with mission-specific features designed only for military and law enforcement applications." --Cornellier (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Mudwater, so you are saying that he is saying that the non-military types belong in the hands of the military. :-)    IMHO his statement illustrates the inconsistent meanings.    Using (both in the same sentence) one "impression" meaning which is the military types / Assault rifle and another meaning civilian types when it comes to the specifics of what to try to ban, which included pistols (pistol configurations holding 11 or more rounds) routinely carried by police. North8000 (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Obama was speaking rhetorically. He meant that assault weapons are too dangerous for ordinary citizens to own, he wasn't literally proposing to have the U.S. Army fight wars with semi-automatic rifles.  Or if I'm wrong and he was, some general is going to have to take him aside and set him straight.  As far as the Gun Digest book, they're trying to be clever and further muddy the waters, to appeal to some gun owners who are opposed to banning assault weapons.  Again, the key point is that the Wikipedia article should untangle the confusion rather than perpetuating it. — Mudwater (Talk) 15:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

In looking at this some more, there is no consensus for the numerous recent changes to the article. From mid-December 2008 to mid-July 2012, the lead section was really very similar to the version that I have proposed -- see for example this version, from December 29, 2008, and this version from July 22, 2012. Then from July 22 to December 16, the lead section was still pretty similar, but had been modified somewhat, for example by this edit which changed the lead paragraph pretty significantly. Then starting on December 16 -- shortly after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting -- a large number of edits were made to the lead section, and to other sections of the article, without much discussion here. Perhaps the most dramatic example is this edit, by Cornellier, which changed the lead from saying that assault weapons are semi-automatic, to saying that they are automatic and semi-automatic -- a huge difference in meaning, and a perfect example of what I'm talking about when I say that the current lead section adds to the confusion, when it should be eliminating the confusion by explaining the term "assault weapon" in simple, direct language.

Based on all this, I am going ahead with the proposed rewrite of the lead section. Again, it clearly and directly explains what an assault weapon is, but at the same time is very similar to the version of the lead section that was in effect from December 2008 to July of this year, and still pretty similar to the version that was in effect from July until one week ago, when many changes started being made without a consensus of editors. — Mudwater (Talk) 15:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I reverted. This had the fundamental problem discussed here which is why there was no agreement. Lets work out something here. Most likely it should be along the lines of covering the various meanings. North8000 (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Until there is agreement among editors about the changes made over the last week, they should not stay in the article, so I'm putting the rewrite of the lead back in. As explained in detail in my previous post, this version of the lead is similar to the way it was for four years and until recently.  There's no consensus for the recent changes, which entirely change the meaning -- for example, by saying that some assault weapons are automatic firearms (!) -- and which, as I've said, add considerably to the existing confusion about this subject. — Mudwater (Talk) 16:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stop trying to war this change in,. The assertion that it has a single definition, is unsourced, implausible,  conflicts with sourcing, and had opposition, not  agreement in talk. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I started a "definitions and usage" section. We can start putting in the various sourced defs and usage here and then build the commensurate section in the lead from that material. North8000 (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added a Request for Comment, in the hope that many other editors will participate in this discussion. — Mudwater (Talk) 18:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To distill the question, the core points of contention are that you want to put an edit in which implicitly states that "assault rifle" "assault weapon" has a consistent definition with respect to "full auto / semi-auto") and that that definition says "semi-automatic" and thus excludes "fully automatic".  And remove the "many different meanings"  statement.  And I disagree. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "Assault rifle"? Don't you mean "assault weapon"? Thus inadvertently demonstrating the point that the two terms are often confused? *Shakes head sadly* — Mudwater (Talk) 20:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for catching. No argument that they get conflated. North8000 (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, you are editing to say that it means only semi-automatic, 174....just edited to say that it means only automatic, and I am in the middle saying that sources conflict and vary on this. North8000 (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Have cleaned up this article. I chose BRD, as this should be fixed quickly, with a new AWB likely in the next 4 weeks. Have also added references. It is easier to just edit the whole article quickly, rather than getting bogged down with wiki-lawyering. (North8000, your bias is showing badly.). Yaf (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, bias towards having the lead summarize what is actually in the sourced material. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yaf, I just went through that massive amount of edits and figured out what you havs been doing. You have been putting in an unsourced personal vision that "assault weapon" has a consistent definitio, put ion what that vision is, putting in clearly fase unsourced POV statements (such as the term being defined by federal law in 43 states, that the current definitions are "previous" and knocking out sourced definitions (e.g. Websters and per Conneticut law. Please stop! North8000 (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I included a item done by somebody else in the recent edit bundle in that list. So not all was you.  North8000 (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the definition(s).....there's really only one solid route....get sourced definitions into the body of the article, and have the lead accurately summarize them, on an ongoing basis. North8000 (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, you delete the WSJ article reference, edit war with other editors, and reinsert your Brady Campaign propaganda. You edit war as an admin. The current article is now extremely biased to the anti-gun perspective, only. The NPOV tag will undoubtedly become permanent. Yaf (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see where I deleted a WSJ reference. I will look again; if I did I will put it back in.  The rest of your post makes no sense and I am totally confused by it. North8000 (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the guideline is collaboration first. The basic concept is that multiple editors work together to build a mutually agreeable article. This can be more challenging when the subject is controversial, as is certainly the case here. But editors can still collaborate effectively, by trying to create a well-balanced article with a neutral point of view. We can still do that here, if everyone cooperates. That means editors should let other editors make substantive contributions, and refrain from repeatedly reverting others' legitimate edits. While I don't wish to make anyone feel defensive by singling them out, and I'm addressing these remarks to everyone in general, I would request that North8000 in particular reassess his approach to this article. I appreciate everyone's enthusiasm for the subject, but, we need to try to build a consensus here. We can do that by adding our own contributions while refining each other's edits, by discussing particular points on the talk page, or both. Taking control of the article by continually removing the contributions of other editors is not the way to go here on Wikipedia. Again, by working towards a neutrally-worded, well-balanced article, we can end up with something that we all find acceptable, and that serves the needs of our readers. Thanks! — Mudwater (Talk) 15:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Lets just build sourced material in the article and then build the lead from that.  If someone puts their personal definition there with wording that implicitly says that it is the only definition, and in direct conflict with the sourced material in the article, then THAT is both extreme and failure to collaborate.  Regarding "semi-auto" vs. "full-auto" lets recap what we have here:


 * MANY sourced definitions that include "full auto" in the "assault weapon" definition.
 * Many sources that define some semi-auto firearms as "assault weapons"
 * Zero sources that say that "assault weapon" is limited to only semi-auto. (though they might be out there)


 * In light of this, how could ANY editor legitimately put in a statement that there is a single definition and that it just includes semi-auto or just full auto? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Further, trying to hammer back in an unsourced challenged statement is in direct conflict with policy and the exact opposite of collaboration. North8000 (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that policy needed quoting for that point because it was regarding something that was pretty far off base, which you put back in. But I like your collaborative atmosphere thought and agree. And would prefer that the work here not have the roughness that it has had. So far I don't see anything that looks like a long term underlying POV conflict here. I think that the one rough area just reflects the reality.....that there are conflicting definitions, and many people have come to consider one or the other as THE definition. It would seem straight forward to have the article acknowledge that there are varying definitions and not indicate otherwise. And that's about the only "conflict" I see here....I think others can be avoided oif we keep the article on-target vs. becoming a coatrack. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarify lead. Uninvolved editor here.  People often come to Wikipedia with no idea what something means, and the regardless of how the technical details are resolved, the lead needs to clarify at the very beginning that it is a classification of firearms or else it'll just be confusing. Andrew (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Lets go back to the version that Mudwater reverted to, add cite needed statements where needed, and get this to a NPOV state. Otherwise, this is never going to get fixed.  My $0.02 worth.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If North8000 will simply not revert and allow this version to be improved over a week (have added cite needed taglines), I think we can get to a truly neutral article. Let's assume good faith here. There appears to be collaboration with all editors except North8000 in editing this article. Miguel Escopeta Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I have attempted to edit the former version that Mudwater reverted to in the assumption of good faith, as this version clearly appears to have the best chance of getting to a neutral point of view of a controversial topic. Lets all edit in good faith on this, and not simply revert what has, de facto, become a consensus version with the sole exception of editor North8000.  Let's work on this version a week or so, and assume good faith, rather than edit war back and forth.  I think there is content that both can agree with in this, and the grammar is noticeably better, too.  Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative, not antagonistic.  When one editor simply reverts what every other editor attempts to write, it becomes impossible to work on an article collaboratively. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a large number of sourced definitions which include full-automatic. You just deleted the sourced statement and reinserted an assertion that it means only semi-automatic, which directly conflicts with the sourced reality.  Please stop. North8000 (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The only thing that is "just me" is being in the center on that question. Someone else reverted in the other direction, saying that "assault weapon" means only full auto. I'm the one in the middle saying that there are definitions both ways. North8000 (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Full auto weapons are specifically Title II weapons by Federal law. They are not assault weapons by Federal Law. In 7 states, there are state level assault weapon bans. In a few of these states, the state legislatures have conflated full auto with semi-auto. Federal law is explicit in what constitutes any Assault Weapons vs. Title II weapons. You really need to review some references and learn the nuances, rather than confusing assault rifles with assault weapons with Title II weapons. Details matter. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I know all about them. You are basically saying that the expired federal federal law (which by the way, didn't even define the term, it just restricted firearms without defining the term) is the one and only definition. North8000 (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the expired federal law did define the term in the title, itself, referring to them as Semi-automatic Assault Weapons (SAWs).  This was done specifically to avoid confusion with Title II weapons. (There are lots of ATF documents around, discussing such SAWs.) Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe that the present article has addressed the NPOV concerns. Therefore, I will remove the NPOV tagline, being I was the one who tagged it originally. If anyone objects, please tag accordingly.  Thanks.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no objection. I don't think that there ever was a RW POV type dispute.  The dispute is structural. North8000 (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Analysis to resolve the definition issue
I think that the underlying dispute is whether the term has a consistent meaning (particularly with respect to semi-auto and automatic) and what it's meaning or meanings are with respect to those terms. There are folks who keep inserting an opening sentence that essentially says that has a consistent meaning and that that meaning is only semi-auto. There has been at least one person who has said the exact opposite (that it means only full auto). I am saying that there are notable definitions in both directions and so that there is no consistent definition. Since the "only full auto" folks have not been persistent, I am going to address the "it means only semi-auto" assertion.

Sources that say that "assault weapon" includes automatic

 * Philly.com article reference  ""assault weapon" is also often used interchangeably to describe fully automatic firearms"


 * Dictionary.com article reference: "any of various automatic and semiautomatic military firearms"


 * Websters article reference  "any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms"


 * State of Connecticut (Judicial Branch):  "Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire"


 * Summary at "gun digest" reference "The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons is all about true assault weapons...fully automatic, selective-fire"

Sources that imply that "assault weapon" includes automatic

 * Expired 1994 federal law. It defines itself as covering semi-automatic assault weapons. The use of "semi-automatic" as a qualifying adjective implies that semi-auto is a subset of "assault weapons"

Sources that say that "assault weapon" includes semi-auto (but do not necessarily limit it to semi-auto

 * Many, and this (I believe) is not disputed

Sources that say that "assault weapon" is limited to semi-auto

 * None so far. But I agree that they probably exist.

Conclusions:


 * Any statement that explicitly or implicitly says that there is a consistent meaning of "assault weapon" with respect to  "semi-automatic/automatic" is unsourced and in direct conflict with a preponderance of sources


 * Any statement that explicitly or implicitly says that the meaning of "assault weapon" is limited to semi-automatic (vs. including automatic) is unsourced and in direct conflict with a preponderance of sources

End of analysis by North8000.

North8000 (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Two points: (1) Your analysis is simply incorrect. The expired federal ban, and most or all of the state or local bans, explicitly define assault weapons as being semi-automatic.  (2) After thinking some more about what you and other editors have said, I for one am open to the article, including the lead section, saying that there is more than one definition of the term "assault weapon".  But the article in general and the lead section in particular should make it crystal clear that the firearms covered in past, current, and proposed assault weapon bans are semi-automatic and not full-automatic.  And the lead section also needs to explain what semi-automatic and full automatic mean.  Right now it uses the terms without describing what they are.  — Mudwater (Talk) 13:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with you except on (1), where I would dispute many things that you said there. But we can agree to disagree on that. I beyond-agree with you on the other points, those are good ideas which should be implemented. North8000 (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Two more points: (1) According to talk page guidelines, it's best to avoid changing your own comments, especially after other editors have already replied (as you did here) -- but that if you feel you must change them, you should do so using and tags. This is explained in detail at WP:REDACT.  Thanks. (2) I really think this article is not where it needs to be right now, and that it describes assault weapons in a way that may mislead readers.  Further, this subject is highly controversial.  So, I am putting the NPOV notice back on the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling the there is no underlying POV dispute and that everyone that I have butted heads with wants exactly the same thing that I do.....clarity. Does the following accurately describe a core concern of yours? "A common misconception is that the firearms often called "assault weapons": are "machine guns"  (e.g. in the recent mass shooting) and the article should clarify that that is incorrect" ?  If so, we want exactly the same thing, and the difference is that you want to create/clarify a definition which says "semi-auto" and my approach is to say that the term has immensely varying meanings and thus no consistent meaning.  And the explanation would follow that.  If so, then an approach along the lines of that identified in your previous post would serve both purposes.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Mudwater, here, in that your analysis is simply incorrect. The primary issue is confusing common spoken English with legal English employing legal terms of art.  Breaking out the analysis, point by point:
 * Point 1: The 1994 Assault Weapon Law specifically did state that it referred only to semi-automatic assault weapons, as this was what was in the title of the law.  The reason for making this distinction was that the Assault Weapon Law primarily defines cosmetics, and, to prevent enforcement misunderstandings, the adjective "semi-automatic" was added so that there would never be any confusion towards applying the assault weapons law to fully-automatic weapons that possessed the exact same cosmetics, but were actually fully-automatic, since they were already covered under the Title II Weapons category in Federal Law.  The purpose of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was to address semi-automatic firearms, only.
 * Point 2: The Philly.com article states that ""assault weapon" is also often used interchangeably to describe fully automatic firearms". This statement is true, but it is true only in just those states where state law has additionally defined assault weapons this way as including fully automatic firearms.  Since only 7 states have written their own assault weapons laws, in at least portions of those states, it is wrong to take these outliers, in what are minority viewpoints written into law in just these states, and assume that these legal definitions hold in all 50 states, for they do not.
 * Point 3: As for the Dictionary.com article reference: "any of various automatic and semiautomatic military firearms", dictionaries only state how words are used, not where those words are used, and dictionaries are never referenced to determine scopes of legal terms of art related to law.  In the 7 states identified in the article, "assault weapon" is used as the dictionary.com article states; but, not in the other 43 states, nor in Federal Law.
 * Point 4: As for the Expired 1994 federal law.  It defined itself as applying only to semi-automatic assault weapons. But, you are mistaken when you state "The use of "semi-automatic" as a qualifying adjective implies that semi-auto is a subset of "assault weapons"".  No, the use of semi-automatic as a qualifying adjective was specifically put into the law to limit the scope of the law only to "semi-automatic" weapons, as "fully-automatic" weapons were never meant to be covered under this Federal Law, as that would be in direct conflict with the 1934 National Firearms Act, as modified by Title II of the 1968 act, which already heavily regulates fully automatic firearms, i.e., "machine guns", among many other weapons.
 * Point 5: As for the summary at "gun digest" reference  "The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons is all about true assault weapons...fully automatic, selective-fire", the phrasing "true assault weapon"  is simply a recognition that a true assault weapon, i.e., an assault rifle, has fully-automatic as well as 3 round burst selective-fire, capability. This is in opposition to the legal term of art "assault weapon", which does not have such automatic capability.
 * Summary: Under current law, both state and federal, the most common definition is that assault weapons are all semi-automatic firearms, only.  The only exceptions occur in a small subset of the 7 states where state level assault weapons have been written such that full-auto has been legally defined within the scope of being considered assault weapons, and for those really odd assault weapon definitions coming from the 1994 Federal Law where a pistol weighing 50 or more ounces is an assault weapon, whereas the same model pistol with a lighter set of grips weighing less than 50 ounces is not defined as an assault weapon, and for those odd shotguns with removable magazines, and for those odd pistols with magazines that are inserted outside of a handgrip, such as the model pistol favored by Winston Churchill in WW I, Mauser C96, along with a few other oddities.
 * Action: I think the current article reflects all the points I have made here, with the exception that the clarity of the subtle distinctions may not be entirely understandable to lay readers with no knowledge of firearms law.  Edits to resolve any of these issues should be worked here on the talk page, to avoid misunderstandings.
 * Are we in agreement? Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with about 75% of what you just wrote. Which breaks down as agreeing with about 90% of the statements of fact and about 0% of the inferences drawn. North8000 (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Mudwater, I have added the details for explaining the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic in the lede. It is obvious to non-laymen, of course, but is certainly a very good idea for the lay reader who does not have significant firearms knowledge.  North8000, I have added the LCAV definition that specifically calls out that an assault weapon is a semi-automatic firearm, only, with a cite containing a quote.  This should address your concern of semi-automatic vs. fully-automatic.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The main problem remains open. The opening statement should be a summary of what is in the sources, which is that definitions vary significantly (or that there is no consistent definition) and include both semi-auto and auto. It is not up to us to create or select an annointed definition. North8000 (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And, we are not picking an "annointed" definition. Wikipedia policies state that articles should represent all major viewpoints.  The article currently does that.  However, it is likewise wrong to give minority viewpoints equal billing with majority viewpoints, too.  The article currently does just that, too. The minority view that assault weapons include full-auto functionality exists only in just a few states.  All other states (including some of the 7 with their own Assault Weapons Bans), as well as Federal Law, are uniformly clear in stating Assault Weapons are semi-automatic firearms, only. This is because full-auto weapons that look like assault weapons are actually Title II weapons, which causes them to fall under entirely different laws under the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968, being regulated uniformly at the Federal level, only, with the exception of additionally being banned in a few locales. Legal definitions of assault weapons have been extended to full-auto functionality in just a few states, most noticeably CT, which is of relevance only because Sandy Hook is there.  So, what specific issues do you see remaining with the article as currently written?  Are you proposing to give unequal weight to the cited references, and therefore give unequal and increased weight to state law in just Connecticut because of Sandy Hook in the lede? That would not be in accordance with Wikipedia policies to give weight to content based upon what cited references state. The article currently states in the lede that Unlike the term "assault rifle", however, the term 'assault weapon' has no consistent definition across all legal jurisdictions in the United States, and is, therefore, subject to varying definitions for varying purposes, including definitions that can include military firearms in some states. This seems to address the issue, consistent with giving weight consistent with the cited references relative to the content of the lede Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. I still think the lead can be improved further, to explain things somewhat more clearly, but I feel like we're making some progress here. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The core of the content dispute is the first sentence (or potentially 2 sentences) of the lead. The route that you two are pursuing is in clear violation of policy, but I'd rather not settle it that way. Setting aside the policy and sourcing points (which both support me) aside, the core of my thoughts is that it has no consistent definition and, as a minimum,  the first sentence should not say or imply otherwise. Do we have grounds for agreement here or not? Sincerely North8000 (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have rewritten the lead section, combining material from several different previous versions. The rewrite uses the two existing references, but I'm sure that it will be easy to add more. I believe that this version of the lead is significantly clearer, more descriptive, and easier to understand than previous versions. And I believe that North8000 will find it particularly appealing: the second sentence states that the term "assault weapon" has several different meanings, and the lead goes on to explain three of them, only one of which is semi-automatic. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good re-write! Have taken this re-write and added more details throughout, as well as adding some photos to liven up the droll text.  Looks like we have made good collaborative progress on this article!  North8000 should find this new version much more appealing.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your many contributions to this article. It's way better than it was a few weeks ago.  About the lead section, I've put it back more or less to the way it was yesterday.  I think the information you had added is appropriate for this article, but I also think it's important for the lead section to give a really good overview of the subject, in a way that's very clear, and easy for the uninformed reader to understand.  That's pretty tricky in this case, for several reasons.  One is that the subject of assault weapons is pretty technical.  Another is the whole question about there being more than one definition or usage of the term.  On top of that it's important to use very neutral wording.  So that means providing a lot of information, but at the same time not confusing the reader.  I really think the lead is just about there.  The rest of the article, while greatly improved, is still rough around the edges, so to speak.  If I get a chance I'll try to help out more in that area.  Right now I'm still really focused on the lead, which is the most important part.  — Mudwater (Talk) 02:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This new version of the lead paragraph, written by North8000, seems reasonable to me. — Mudwater (Talk) 17:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This newer one by Yaf looks good too. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think either version is good. While it is a term that I find repulsive and do not use, it is a term in common usage.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree with all of these comments.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned how this doesn't address the creation of the term by gun control advocates, since AFAIK, it didn't exist in the literature before. I'm also concerned how it ignores the apparently intentional conflation of semi-autos & full-autos.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  10:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just searched Google Books, there's a US Military Manual from around 1984 for the TOW system, described as the "TOW antitank / assault weapon system". So I think more research is needed to back up the statement that the term was created by gun control advocates. Re. the "apparently intentional conflation of semi-autos & full-autos". Definitely there's a lot of confusion about this, whether it's deliberate, or is just down to misapplication of Hanlon's razor would require investigation. --Cornellier (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * TOW stands for "Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire command data link, guided missile", and the term "assault weapon" in that context is probably a parallel construction from assault gun (Sturmgeshutz, not Sturmgewehr), with "weapon" substituted for "gun" since a missle is not in fact a "gun". It's implausible that the misnomer under discussion here is in any way connected to that. Andyvphil (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the addition needs better wording. But on the last point, I'm pretty sure that they meant it in the context of applying it to rifles and pistols. North8000 (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The current lead includes "In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms...", which is simply false. As the quote from "Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons" makes clear, for many engaged in discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States a "true assault weapon" remains an assault rifle or machine pistol, as was incontrovertable from approx. 1944-1994, and the various lists of weapons and characteristics alleged in various laws to define "assault weapon" remain an illegitimate attempt to expand and muddy the definition. The current lead violates wp:NPOV as regards this dispute. The text is somewhat better, but that isn't reflected in the lead. Andyvphil (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that you are partially right to the extent that the discussed paragraph does not sufficiently put it's contents in context and is also given too much prominence. North8000 (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't knows what the "discussed paragraph" is, still less why it has "too much prominence". What I see a lot of on this page is the utterly nonsensical assertion that there is confusion between the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon", which are alleged to be separate categories. This is, as I have already noted, simply false. Assault rifles are a category of assault weapon. US "assault weapon" laws are not about actual assault weapons at all. Quoting from the Wikipedia article on the StG 44, "StG is an abbreviation of Sturmgewehr. The name was chosen personally by Adolf Hitler for propaganda reasons and literally means 'storm rifle' as in 'to storm (i.e. 'assault') an enemy position'. After the adoption of the StG 44, the English translation 'assault rifle' became the accepted designation for this type of infantry small arm."In other words the term Sturm(assault) exists precisely to distinguish automatic weapons from their predecessors. Semi-automatic rifles of the type addressed by US "assault weapon" bans (note the necessary quotation marks) are not assault weapons at all, and the definition in those laws do not define the term "assault weapon", they misappropriate it.
 * This is not a fringe POV, and it is reflected in some of the sources you choose to mention. But it has no place in your lead and where it is reflected in your text it is couched in inappropriate expressions of doubt, as in, "Gun-rights and sports shooting groups consider the phrase assault weapon to be a... politically driven catchphrase aimed to conflate non-automatic weapons with actual full-automatic assault rifles." Is this really something about which there are two sides? Do you really have prominent gun control partisans asserting that semi-automatic rifles are what modern militaries use to "assault" enemy positions? Do you have anyone significant forthrightly defending this choice of term? If so, the article should quote someone so clowning himself. Andyvphil (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * IMHO you are right overall but are missing something. To put it in shorthand, your are saying that "Definition #1" is correct and "Definition #2" (that which is written in "assault weapon" laws) is bogus (which I agree with you on). And then in essence you are the saying: "So let's pretend that the bogus definition doesn't exist" Which I don't agree with you on. You are never going to solve a bogus definition problem / inform people about it by pretending that the bogus definition doesn't exist. Maybe changes are needed, but IMHO they shouldn't include pretending that the wrong definition doesn't exist.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For the life of me I cannot find the slightest justification for your assertion that I want to "preten[d] that the bogus definition doesn't exist." I don't see where I've said anything to that effect and my only edit to the article, that I can recall, is to more accurately convey the POV that the "Feinstein" definitions are misnomers. I've reinstated it, btw, as your revert was unaccompanied by any substantive explanation, still less a rebuttal of my criticisms of the prior version. Andyvphil (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You reverted again, claiming that my edit was inaccurate. Obviously I disagree. I've made specific points in my edit summaries. I suggest you at least try to respond to them. Andyvphil (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The U.S. laws about assault weapons are definitely about semi-automatic firearms with certain features like a detachable magazine, a pistol grip etc. -- laws like the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 and Sen. Feinstein's proposal to reinstitute the federal ban are about exactly that. Assault rifles and machine pistols are a different matter, and have been severely restricted since the National Firearms Act of 1934.  The lead section needs to be perfectly clear about this.  Otherwise our readers will be misled into thinking that Feinstein's proposal and others would ban machine guns and other military weapons, when such laws actually would ban semi-automatic rifles and other conventional firearms. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. I think that if we were to put your post directly into the lead it would solve the problem that I was talking about. :-)  Or more specifically, making a few tweaks in the subject paragraph along the lines of your post would help.  I might try that. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

convenience break
Replying to this post by Andyvphil: Yes, there really are two sides to the question of whether or not the term "assault weapon" refers to the type of weapons that are banned by the U.S. laws -- ignoring for the moment the critical point that the laws themselves use that terminology. I thought that was kind of obvious. For supporting quotes, here are the first three that I found, but I'm sure it would be easy to find many more. Feel free to add them to the article, or maybe someone else will. To be honest, at this point I think that would help the article be more balanced and therefore neutral, even though I think these quotes are misinformed at best, and in my opinion they're deliberately dishonest as well: "Federal Gun Laws: Assault Style Weapons", Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Sample quote: "The Brady Campaign supports banning military-style semi-automatic assault weapons along with high-capacity ammunition magazines. These dangerous weapons have no sporting or civilian use. Their combat features are appropriate to military, not civilian, contexts." "The Top 10 NRA Myths about Assault Weapons", Brady Campaign again. Sample quote: "NRA myth #1: There is no such thing as a semiautomatic assault weapon. Response: Wrong. The guns covered by the Assault Weapons Act are semiautomatic versions of fully automatic guns designed for military use.... Even semiautomatic assault weapons can be fired with extraordinary speed. When San Jose, California, police test-fired an Uzi, a 30-round magazine was emptied in slightly less than two seconds on full automatic, while the same magazine was emptied in just five seconds on semiautomatic." "Assault Weapons Policy Summary", Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Sample quote: "Assault weapons are a class of semi-automatic firearms designed with military features to allow rapid and accurate spray firing. They are not designed for “sport;” they are designed to kill humans quickly and efficiently. Features such as pistol grips and the ability to accept a detachable magazine clearly distinguish assault weapons from standard sporting firearms by enabling assault weapons to spray large amounts of fire quickly and accurately." P.S. I would encourage you to review some of my previous posts, such as this, this, and especially this. I believe that other editors here are in agreement with them. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in the posts you link to that is relevant to my point, which you accurately repeat in your first sentence but don't seem to have taken in. The article misleadingly titled Assault weapon (misleading because actual -- or "true", as one of your sources has it -- assault weapons are a different subject -- there is a missing disambiguation page) begins "In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms." Again, this is simply FALSE. For one side of the debate (the better informed side, generally), "semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms" is a "so-called assault weapon", not an "assault weapon". The article, as written, takes the opposite point-of-view from an undeniably non-fringe side of the debate, which the very definition of a POV violation. You admit there are two sides -- are you claiming one side is "fringe"?
 * Also, you say the fact that the fact that "the laws themselves use that terminology" is "critical", apparently thinking that that justifies the use of the term without qualification. But that is nonsense. Legislative majorities have many powers, but the power to force misnomers into uncontroversial proper usage requires more than legislation. If the ban had included air rifles that would not make "BB guns are assault weapons" into a true sentence without the qualifier "...as defined in..." or scare quotes around "assault weapons". Andyvphil (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I admit that I might be a bit confused about the point or points that you're making on this talk page. But without getting into a rehash of what we both said, I'll try to respond to your latest post.  As currently written, the first paragraph of the article says that the term "assault weapon" has different meanings and usages.  Then the second paragraph starts, "In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as ...", and it ends by saying, "Whether or not assault weapons should be legally restricted more than other firearms, how they should be defined, and even whether or not the term "assault weapon" should be used at all, are questions subject to considerable debate."  I think that's what we want, because it makes it clear that (1) the term is used to mean different things, (2) the semi-automatic firearms are what the laws are restricting, and (3) this is all very controversial and some people think you shouldn't call those things "assault weapons".  We need to keep in mind that there are a lot of people right now thinking, "Hey, some people want to pass laws banning or restricting assault weapons.  What does that mean, exactly?  I'll look it up on Wikipedia."  So the lead section needs to explain clearly what kinds of firearms the laws are talking about, and clarify, among other things, that they're *not* full-automatic -- and what that even means, since a lot of readers don't know that much about firearms.  At the same time the lead should say that the term is used in different ways and that some people think you shouldn't use the term to refer to the types of guns that the laws are about. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it seems to me that I am making specific points and you are responding with mush. Not even mush that I particularly disagree with, btw, but not at all relevant to what I am saying. I'll try again: You comment on one recent edit: "This paragraph is about full-auto assault rifles, and how they're sometimes confused with assault weapons". Which is a deeply confused sentence. You can't possibly "confuse assault rifles with assault weapons" -- they ARE assault weapons and no law passed saying that "assault weapons" are something else can change that, any more than the (possibly apocryphal) law defining Pi as 3.1415 changed the fact that Pi is actually not a rational number. Similarly, you reinserted the statement that assault rifles are "machine guns" despite it being pointed out by 76.116.209.123 that "An assault rifle is NOT a machine gun" (and the hatnote at machine gun that machine guns are "Not to be confused with Assault rifle"!) When legislation invents a misnomer it needs to be clearly identified as such, to a degree proportionate to informed POV, not accepted unquestioningly as a valid alternate definition, which is the current POV here.
 * If this article is to be kept it needs either re-titling to reflect the fact that it is not about assault weapons but merely the legal misnomer, or its scope needs to be expanded to include its nominal subject. An exclusionary hatnote under this title is insufficient. Currently it is perhaps best characterized as a POV fork from Federal Assault Weapons Ban where the locution "so called 'assault weapons'" is properly used in the lede to link here.Andyvphil (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that North8000has restored the characterization of an assault rifle as a machine gun, writing "I think that 'machine gun' is a good way in common language to say what (fully) automatic means. The bad hatnote elsewhere not withstanding." Sheesh. And "assault weapon" is a good way to say in common language "bad gun", so why bother writing an article and making superfluous distinctions? Ignore those pedantic people elsewhere who attempt to communicate that the StG44 was only a LMG when equipped with, and intended for use with, a bipod (or better). "Machine gun"? Close enough for Wikipedia. Andyvphil (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:Firearms review
Have reviewed article against WP:Firearms guidelines and assigned it a B level, in place of the start category it previously was rated. Lots of collaborative work recently has improved this article. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Coverage of controversy regarding the term itself
(responding to Trek...) I think that you're sort of right....we're missing a section in the lead on the controversy regarding the term itself. There is a lot of material but to distill a few points from criticisms: North8000 (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Lots of criticisms saying its not a real term. I think that these boil down to saying that its not a real term with respect to having a real definition, and so that it's open to abuse....anybody can make up any definition.
 * The deliberate conflation. The "marketing" / titling conversations utilize the military firearms meaning, and then the "fine print" of laws/ proposed laws is written to exclude civilian firearms. Sometimes the latter is the military-appearing ones, sometimes its even broader e.g. pistols such as those commonly carried by police (10 round magazine) or all semi-autos (which is like saying "all cars that burn gas") being defined as "assault weapons".


 * A start has been made on this in the section "Political and legislative issues" with the text "whether or not the term ... should be used ... are questions subject to considerable debate .... Critics say that it is an vague term created by anti-firearm activists [and] pejorative when used to describe civilian firearms, considering it a politically driven catchphrase...." And for example you see comments above like "it is a term that I find repulsive and do not use" --Cornellier (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * For the article itself, that's all fair game, assuming we continue to have good references and strive for a balanced and neutral point of view. For the lead section, I really think it's better to be very dry, and focus mainly on what the term "assault weapon" means, which is difficult enough.  The lead already says that whether assault weapons should be more restricted, how they should be defined, and even whether or not the term should be used at all, are controversial.  And it says that the term is sometimes conflated with "assault rifle", and explains in detail how that's something totally different.  That's good for an introductory overview.  Right after that the "Definitions and usage" section, especially the "History of terminology" subsection, gets into how all this came about, and what different people think about it.  So, I think the lead is good the way it is.  — Mudwater (Talk) 14:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * IMO criticism of the term has significant enough coverage / material that a sentence or two in the lead would be appropriate. Also, there are key summary points which are not directly in the lead. One is in the article to the effect that it has no consistent definition and so is subject to creation of different definitions for different purposes. North8000 (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Have attempted to address this shortcoming in the lede. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A 100% factual edit to the lead section, specifically pointing out that the very term "assault weapon" is in contention, particularly among actual firearms experts, and is promptly undone to its former for stated reasons of 'well, it confuses people'. And this is why no one trusts wiki any longer. Thanks for making my point. "cheers" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lklawson  (talk • contribs)  04:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As you can see, there's been a lot of discussion on this talk page about that very subject. We're trying to build a consensus about what the article, including but not limited to the lead section, should say about that. — Mudwater (Talk) 05:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

January 8 edits
The old lede is total crap. This is the best I can come up with without rewriting the whole lede. (In fact I have only rearranged the text and removed redundancies.) User North8000 has some issues. So far he has been unable the express what they are. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well the process issue is that you are trying to unilaterally massively rewrite the lead which a lot of people have put a lot of work into slowly developing a consensused version of.   North8000 (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The content issue is that you are trying to take out the most informative sentences regarding this term, namely it's lack of an consistent meaning and resultant controversy about the term itself. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In fact I have done exactly the opposite, my changes to the lead emphasize just these points – in a style suitable for a Wikipedia article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I will list the my changes here. I have not "massively rewritten" anything, but done minimal changes for the lede to meet the stylistic requirements of lede sections on Wikipedia. If you have objections, please address each of these edits individually. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Removed redundant non-definition: "Assault weapon refers to different types of firearms, and is a term that has differing meanings and usages." – If there are multiple meanings, then this should be expressed in a hat note or on a disambiguation page. No need to state the same in the article body. This article is about one meaning – the use of the term in the US legal context and the surrounding controversy.
 * 2) Removing redundant definition of semi-automatic firearms. – we do not duplicate content, we link to the relevant article.
 * 3) Merging two paragraphs about the controversiality of the term (Removing redundant duplicate "The use of the term "assault weapon" is also highly controversial",) – Note that moving all this to the fist paragraph gives it more emphasis.
 * 4) Split and merged paragraphs.


 * I agree with North8000. There's been a lot of discussion on this talk page about the lead section, so it should be left pretty much the way it is now, unless there is further consensus to change it.  A number of editors think it's very important to have a short first paragraph stating right off the bat that "assault weapon" is a term with different meanings and usages, which it is.  The hatnote doesn't cover that, it's for terms that sound similar but are not the same thing, or same set of things, and so they have their own articles.  Furthermore we've agreed that it's crucial to explain in the lead what a semi-automatic firearm is.  For the most common meaning of "assault weapon" -- the thing restricted by the different laws -- that understanding is critical, and often lacking in the real world. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Consensus" does not allow you to write crap, i.e. content that does not meet Wikipedia guidelines on style and content. Now please read the new intro before making more complaints. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I did read the new intro, rather carefully, and I believe that the lead that was previously agreed upon by consensus does meet Wikipedia guidelines for style and content. But feel free to try to persuade other editors of your proposed changes here on the talk page. So far you haven't done so. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, responding to Petri Krohn) It's not just "style", and you are removing substantial content. And in cases like this you need to propose changes in talk, not just try war back in a massive rewrite shifting the conversation to being about any specific objections to the massive rewrite. North8000 (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Have attempted to fix the meandering lede [here].  If it is too far off base, then we can simply revert to the older version.  But, I think I have addressed all the concerns with Petri Krohn's version as were identified previously.  It certainly reads a lot smoother.  What does the community think?  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your efforts, but, I really think the lead section as of yesterday is better organized, and therefore easier to understand. So, I'm putting it back.  The version I'm restoring has four paragraphs, each with a very clear subject: (1) Brief intro to say that "assault weapon" refers to firearms but has different meanings and usages; (2) clear explanation of what it means in the laws restricting its use -- semi-automatic (and what that means), has certain features (and what they are), that whole thing.  This paragraph explains the legal definition very clearly, and it states the facts in a very dry and neutral way, which is what we want.  (3) they're sometimes confused with assault rifles, and a clear explanation of what an assault rifle is; (4) brief explanation about how the term is controversial. This was already mentioned at the end of the second paragraph, but most editors seem to think it's better to have a short separate paragraph about this in the lead.  It's possible that this version of the lead could be improved further, on top of the various changes that different editors have already made, but so far this is the best version I've seen. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mudwater. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's abundantly clear hoplophobes have hijacked this entire article, rewritten it to their liking, without any regard whatsoever as to the centuries-long history of firearms, any knowledge or understanding of the difference between single-action, double-action, bolt-action, magazine, clip, semi-automatic, selective-fire, and machine gun.  These idiots cannot fathom the differences, primarily because they have little to zero personal knowledge of the difference.  Damn Wikipedia's POV rules all to hell, when you're deleting valid entry based on thousands of articles obtained from highly-experienced shooters and gunsmiths from third-party reporters over the years.  Hell, you even deleted a circa 1950's National Geographic link a couple of years ago.  You call yourself an encyclopedia?  No.  You're evolving into a poster child for revisionist history.  Reality is, people.  If you want to keep posting idealistic "that'sthewaylifeoughttobeweshouldalljustembraceitdon'tyoufeelwonderfuleverything'sgoingtobejustfine!"  Uh, no.  It's not.  That's idealism, not real life.  Grow a brain.  While you're at it, please review our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, especially our Second Amendment, as well as all the Federal and Supreme Court cases upholding our right to keep and bear arms.  You might also wish to visit the fact that the gun-less U.K. enjoys a 47% home break-in rate while our armed citizens endure just 3%, as well as the fact that when Australia followed the U.K.'s gun ban about four years ago, their crime rate DOUBLED in less than two years.  The Australian govt. is darn right proud of themselves!  Meanwhile, the overridden Australian citizenry is PISSED.  You're going to be pissed too, when your crime rates double and your home break-ins soar past 10,000% of what they were previously.  Idiots.  And Wikipedia, you really need to grow a brain, too, as Wikipedia has LOST it's ability to do what it was designed to do, at least in this case:  Properly inform, provide for, and protect the people.  You, too, need to grow a brain.  06:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.177.40 (talk)

Listings under 1994 assault weapon ban
I'm thinking that the listings Listings under 1994 assault weapon ban should be summarized / condensed a bit, possibly going to prose form. There is an article specifically on that ban. North8000 (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Renaming this article
Judging from the discussions, is it time to change the name of this article to Assault weapon (civilian) and to flesh out the assault weapon page from the current assault weapon disambiguation page to contain discussions on the original uses and meanings of the term "assault weapon", which is notably quite different? With the push in NY (and as attempted in IL), it appears that "assault weapon (civilian) may soon encompass almost all privately owned firearms. For example, CT even has a bill under consideration, that has been recently introduced, that limits civilian firearms to single shot guns, only, with all others being defined as assault weapons, and therefore banned for civilians. The current hat note on this article says it is about the American legal and political term, only, with re-direction to the disambiguation page.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Due to the wide ranging meanings, "assault weapon" is not a type of firearm, it is a TERM. So IMO problem #1 with your idea is that that title implies otherwise.  Second, I think that we need to explain the TERM, (including is flaws, background, conflicting meanings etc.)   and such an artificial distinction would preclude us from doing that.    Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the need to explain the term. But, not in this article for those assault weapons that are not related to the American legal and political term, which is what actually dominates the news currently. The current scope of this article is set by the hatnote disambiguation content link at the top of the page.  THIS page is solely about the American legal and political term.  Inserting military content in this article only serves to cause confusion.  The American legal and political term is solely about civilian firearms.  If we had another page that was labeled Assault weapon, with a paragraph that mentioned the civilian limited meaning of the term under American legal and political contexts, with a small paragraph in the new Assault weapon article pointing readers interested in the American legal and political term to the more detailed article entitled Assault weapon (civilian) using a "For more on the American legal and political term, see Assault weapon (civilian)" type link, this new breakout/structure would better address all the concerns identified by the IP editors about so-called "true assault weapons" being full auto, only, as well as addressing all those assault weapons ban content topics pertaining to semi-auto civilian weapons that are also called "assault weapons", but which really are not at all related to the capabilities of "true assault weapons".  There are two major usages of the term of assault weapon, and, with the current structure, we are only addressing the American legal and political term.  There are multiple meanings of the term Assault weapon split between military weapons systems and civilian weapons, and there are also multiple meanings of assault weapon under just the civilian weapons portion of the usage of the term "assault weapon".  Do you see the problem that this structure would better solve?  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling that you and I have the same goal but see very different ways of getting there. I can see an immediate definition problem with your approach. (laws that include "full auto" in assault weapon definitions.) but lets put that aside for a moment and discuss the general topic.  We basically have a word that is designed to mislead, and who's varying definitions cover nearly all firearms.  My answer is to cover the TERM as what it is, a TERM, and explain all of it's varying definitions and issues.  Your answer is to try to create order amongst real world firearms (with respect to this term)i.e. trying to create an order which does not exist.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I'm not sure that the article needs to be retitled. We need to edit the article a bit more discretely.  At the moment the parties editing share radically different ideologies and the result is a weak article.  The article needs to define and describe the term Assault Weapon.  We can't label assault weapons because different jurisdictions at different times classify handguns into the assault weapon category and at other times only military style semi-automatic firearms are included. It's a moving target (no pun intended).  So we need to say that it is a moving target and that the definition changes over time and geography.  In some municipalities semi-automatic pistols are assault weapons and in another they might not be.  Anything short of a fully automatic machine gun and anything above a single shot bolt action or a revolver could fall into the category at some point in time.-Justanonymous (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (added later) Actually Connecticut law and the common meaning amongst lots of people includes full-auto in the definitions as well. North8000 (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to the idea of renaming the article. "Assault weapon" is a term with different meanings and usages.  The main or most important meaning is that it's the thing that's banned or restricted by certain laws.  Mostly that means semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines and one, two, or more features, etc., etc., etc.  So that's the main focus of the article, but the other meanings of the term should also be covered.  Meanwhile, for actual assault rifles, see the assault rifle article.  In conclusion, let's not rename the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree that we should not rename. North8000 (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course the article must be renamed. Or deleted as a POV fork. It is not about assault weapons. It is about the political and legal misnomer and should, at the minimum, be named so as to reflect that fact. Andyvphil (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes you are right, it IS about a misnomer (to put it nicely for something that is basically a term of deception) But how would renaming it to something that pretends that it is not solve that? That would make the problem worse.   IMHO the way to deal with a problematic term is to provide credible coverage of the term.  North8000 (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it should be renamed "Assault weapon (civilian)". So-called "assault weapons" are not civilian assault weapons either. Assault weapon (US political misnomer) is probably what it should be named, as currently written. (Nb: WP:NPOV says "Avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion", and is there really any controversy that "assault weapon" is "a word or term that suggests a meaning that is known to be wrong", as Wikiarticle "misnomer" puts it?) Alternately the article could retain its current title by first addressing the named subject before also covering the attempted redefinition, even if - because the named subject is simple and the evasions baroque - the latter remained the bulk of the article. Andyvphil (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't saying misnomer in the title be a POV issue? I could see a disambiguation page with actual content instead of just links, but i prefer this personally. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it's not specifically a misnomer. It's a terms with no specific meaning  (a confusing array of meanings) which makes it ripe for mis-use / deception, and so it's main use is for deception.  I'm not saying that this should be stated as such in the article.  It should be covered as a TERM, and it's various meanings, uses and criticisms covered.  North8000 (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The article name, "Assault weapon", should remain unchanged -- even though some people object to the term itself, and consider it to be non-neutral, in the context of American gun laws and gun politics. See Article titles, where it says, "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." — Mudwater (Talk) 05:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But, there are two fundamental meanings of the term "Assault Weapon". Namely, the American legal and political term (which is an intentional misnomer), and the original meaning, which is the military meaning.  An article labeled just "Assault weapon" should address all meanings, not just the American legal and political term.  The hatnote at the top of the article is simply not adequate to address the fact that there are two meanings.  By covering only the American legal and political term, we are essentially supporting Sugarmann's attempt to mislead the public and to ban what is, in essence, simply a common semi-automatic gun that happens to have black plastic in place of wood furniture.  Just having one name is misleading our readers.  I propose that we have two names, either (Assault weapon (military), and Assault Weapon (civilian), or that we have one article entitled Assault weapon, with a sub-paragraph introducing the civilian meanings, with a "see more" detail link to a second article named Assault weapon (civilian) containing essentially the content of the current Assault weapon article.  Otherwise, we are simply misleading readers into believing that the semi-automatic firearms in civilian hands called assault weapons are really military assault weapons (e.g., the snowball from hell, the Rifleman's Assault Weapon, or some other military weapon), when they clearly are not.  We should not be pushing such a POV which is factually untrue. The current article structure is clearly misleading readers.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a lot more than two meanings. Every time a politician opens his mouth or puts pen to paper that can be a new meaning. Full auto, real assault rifles, semi-auto military appearing, all semi-autos, all guns with detachable magazines, all guns holding more than 10 rounds etc. etc. Often two meanings in the same sentence...I.E. Obama says that we need an assault weapon ban because these belong in the hands of the military, not civilians. (the two different meanings there are real assault rifles that the military uses, and a wide range of civilian arms included in the "assault weapon" proposal-of-the-week.)  So there are so many different meanings that it really isn't a type of gun, its a term of deception. North8000 (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you, but that is a POV (one we share). The best we can do is document the different meanings, and where commentary about the accuracy/purpose of those meanings comes from reliable sources discuss it here. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree 100%. North8000 (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree, in that there are only two categories of meanings. There is the American legal and political term meaning, and there is the original military meaning.  The military meaning is fixed, and is not changing.  The American legal and political term meaning is, ultimately, about all civilian owned firearms.  Of course, the meaning on the American legal and political meaning side is changing nearly daily, to include more and more firearms, with a new total of 158 added just today with Sen. Feinstein's proposal.  But, whatever the count, it is solely about civilian owned firearms on the American legal and political term meaning.  There are only two broad categories of meanings.  We should use this categorization of differences to select the names of two articles to address this difference.  Otherwise, we are only confusing readers into believing that the latest newly added 158 "assault weapons" are all military weapons (when they clearly are not.)  For example, .25 ACP caliber Baby Browning is an assault weapon under the new rules by virtue it can accept a magazine holding more than 10 rounds, whereas I don't think anyone could honestly claim that such a firearm even with a magazine holding more than 10 rounds was a weapon with any military battlefield usefulness! (Complete details are here. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I with you, but I think that your proposed way to get there actually works against your own thoughts. I think that the bit of a disconnect is that you are an expert contributor on firearm articles but fundamentally this is not really about an specific type of firearms, it is about a political term. Moreover, one of the many political meanings of the term IS as a synonym to actual military full auto assault rifles.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But, by intentionally confusing the civilian political term with a true military assault weapon, such as FGM-172 SRAW (Short-Range Assault Weapon), Heckler & Koch HK CAWS (Close Assault Weapon System), M202 FLASH (FLame Assault SHoulder Weapon), Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon, Rifleman's Assault Weapon, Squad Assault Weapon, and the Urban Assault Weapon, all of which are true military assault weapons in line with the military meaning of the term "assault weapon", you are clearly going against your own thoughts. A better way is to break out the military meaning from the civilian misnomer, with one of the article structures that I have proposed previously.  Otherwise, by only allowing one categorical definition of assault weapon to be inserted in this article (as the American Legal and Political term, only), we are intentionally confusing the misnomer with what are true assault weapons used by the military. This is going against your intentions.  As for Assault rifles, they are not generally considered to be assault weapons, since assault rifles are selective fire firearms, whereas civilian misnomer type assault weapons are semi-automatic, only, firearms.  This is universally true, except in just a few jurisdictions (two states, mostly, except for just a handful of local city-wide definitions passed by local town fathers/councilmen, etc., in a few other states), where politicians have conflated the two (assault rifles with assault weapons) in order to hoodwink the public. The most neutral approach for the current article is to cover all definitions within the two broad categories of the American Political and Legal Term, and the Military term. This requires using a different article structure than what we presently have. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We probably need a substantially reworked article.  I was not arguing against that. But you can't cover a term-of-deception by trying to invent some imaginary organization of real world firearms organized by a term-of-deception  Sincerely,  North8000 (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

that a bunch of military weapons use the word "assault weapon" in their name does not define the term to mean only those weapons, any more than rifles are restricted to guns that use the word rifle as part of their official name. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)