Talk:Assault weapon/Archive 5

Reversion of the simplified, sourced paragraph
The paragraph on the left (the second paragraph in the lead) was reverted to the paragraph on the right with the edit summary "This is not just a simplification. It's a significant change and removal of explanatory material."

FIRST, except where "citation needed" is shown, the statements in the left-hand (revised) column are supported by sources. SECOND, Re: the first and third sentences of the old version: How is removing words and terms that do not appear in the sources ("ergonomic," "construction," and "a folding or collapsing stock") and merging what remains into one simple sentence not an improvement? THIRD, what "explanatory material" in the old, long second sentence improves in the lead? Specifically, what makes "cartridge," "chamber," "bolt handle," "lever," "sliding handgrip," and the details of how they work together so central to understanding "assault weapon" that they must be included in the lead? These mechanisms are described in detail in the Relation to assault rifles section, so how is the brief, cited "Semi-automatic firearms fire and reload only one bullet (round) per trigger pull" not a more suitable intro to that material? Lightbreather (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

COPIED (not removed) from "Removal of the word" section above, last two comments which have to do with this section:
 * Anastrophe, 20 DEC 2013: Back to the topic at hand, I'm not certain I agree with North8000's most recent reversion. I think LB's last revision is much closer to a reasonable compromise than we've had thus far. I agree that the excruciatingly detailed explanation of how semi-autos work as opposed to full auto is over the top for the lede, the simpler 'one round per trigger pull' vs 'multiple rounds per trigger pull' distinction still being made. We still need to mine the remaining text for a balance between brevity and clarity.
 * North8000, 21 DEC 2013: I think you're right. I think I reverted the wrong edit.   I'll undo.
 * Thanks, guys. I restored the simplified paragraph, adding sources (already used in article) for second part of new third (old fourth) sentence. Lightbreather (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused between the edits and the proposal. One clarifies the distinction between semi-automatic and (actual) automatic which is the biggest distinction between military and civilian firearms) and the other has wording which makes the distinction between semi-automatic and "manual" (common civilian non-semi-automatic firearms)  (which is basically the distinction between the two halves of civilian owned firearms.) I plan to look at it and make sure or tweak accordingly.     North8000  (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What an automatic weapon does is described in detail in at least two places in the body: in the Definitions and usage section and in the Relation to assault rifles section. I REALLY think we should focus on some issues like that (redundancy, for one) in the body of the article, as I proposed on 10 DEC 2013. After that, we should fine-tune the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. In the meantime, I'm just checking lead content for citations and accuracy, that's all. Lightbreather (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused, I think that the clarifying item that I'm describing is in the article. There is such immense confusion between the terms (abetted by even firearm experts sometimes abbreviating one as it's "opposite", and anti-firearm people consistently trying to mislead people into thinking that "semi-automatic" is some particularly powerful capability vs. describing 1/2 the firearms in America)  that I think "avoiding duplication" is an immensely minor goal (if event that) when it conflicts with providing clarity in an area which is immensely common to confuse or misunderstand.  North8000  (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I hear and I'm pretty sure I understand your concern, North. I'm spending this afternoon with my dad, and tomorrow with my husband and sons. Let's put our heads together after Christmas. I'm sure we can address your concerns and mine, too. Merry Christmas, if you celebrate it. Else, just have a nice couple of days. "Talk" with you in a few. Lightbreather (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And a Merry Christmas to you too, Lightbreather, and everyone. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we clear this up? Grenade launcher, or grenade launcher mount?
This is not at the top of my list, but I do like to get the facts straight and it keeps popping up over and over. The language that I've seen in these laws, lists of features that could contribute to a firearm being classified an semiautomatic firearm, are similar to this example (from the expired AWB of 1994): Our article currently says: If it's true that these laws are really talking about grenade launcher mounts and not grenade launchers, and if it's true that grenade launchers are not available to civilians, I'd like to provide a good source or two to cite. --Lightbreather (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept
 * a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—
 * ‘‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
 * ‘‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath
 * the action of the weapon;
 * ‘‘(iii) a bayonet mount;
 * ‘‘(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed
 * to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
 * ‘‘(v) a grenade launcher;
 * Attributes commonly used in assault weapon definitions, and their purposes:
 * Grenade Launcher Mount (mount only, grenade launcher itself not available to civilians).


 * Its a little complex, as there are multiple things that would probably be covered (difficult to know for sure, since nobody could now be prosecuted or defend against a particular device to find out for sure). There are (at least) 4 types of grenades launchers that can be used. One is a single use disposable kind where the launcher and actual grenade are one unit that is attached to the rifle, and once the grenade is fired, the launcher is disposed. In this case, the "mount" logic is accurate - being able to mount the disposable grenade wo. The third type of grenade launcher is one where you attach a tube directly to the end of the barrel, and actually shoot a special bullet at the grenade. The bullet then acts as a firing pin for the grenade. In some cases there is no special "launcher" and the grenade can be just shoved into the regular barrel of the rifle.  To my knowledge one has never been used in a crime of any sort not perpetrated by the military itself. It was so pointless that in Feinsteins 2013 bill, she dropped this feature because it just added confusion without any real benefit, and due to the complexity of the grenade launchers available, saying what is or isn't covered may be problematic.uld probably count as a feature (even if one did not have access to the grenade). The second type is a reusable permanent tube attached to the bottom of the rifle that can be loaded with multiple grenades.  In either case, the grenades  or the launcher tube themselves are covered as explosive devices requiring the NFA Title 1, (like machine guns) and are covered by the NFA rather than the AWB. (Each grenade purchased requires a separate background check and $200 tax stamp too) It was sort of a dumb provision really, they are incredibly expensive, and already heavily licensed/taxed/registered/background checked. (this also doesn't address the 37mm vs 40mm issue - 40mm are the "real" grenades - these are "transferable" based on serial number, just like machine guns, and I doubt there are actually any left that are transferabble since they are one use items. 37mm are less restricted, but would be things like tear gas, smoke etc. They are still however subject to NFA) - TLDR : Grenade launchers are available to civilians, just like machine guns are, under the NFA - but if you go through the NFA you probably are attaching it to a machine gun, and therefore by definition are exempt from the AWB. Explosive grenades technically are also available, but there are probably none left that are transferable. non-explosive grenades are available, but each grenade is individually covered under the NFA.  Gaijin42 (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Rifle_grenade this article covers quite a few of the types of grenades I discussed above. The main example of the reusable type(and possibly intended target of the AWB) is probably M203_grenade_launcher. that last article has some sources on the civilian ownership rules (I have not checked the sources for reliability or accuracy, I just see that they exist) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Grenade Launchers are already illegal of course. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * not quite illegal, but heavily restricted just as machine guns are.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes they are classified as "destructive military devices" (same as a hand grenade) and are already heavily regulated. The only civilians who have such access are military contractors and such. Please sign your posts... --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉  20:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not true, any civilian can go through the NFA background check and tax process and buy such a device (they are prohibitively expensive however, with individual grenades costing thousands of dollars, on top of the tax issue). The explosive 40mm grendes are broken into transferable and non-transferable, with only the pre 86 items being transferable. As they are one time use items, the supply is obviously vanishingly small. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So it's immensely difficult to own legally.  North8000  (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42, or anybody, can you provide a reliable reference for grenade launchers being destructive devices under the NFA? I was under the impression that a grenade is an NFA destructive device but the launcher is not. I'm thinking especially about the "second type" you referred to in your post, "a reusable permanent tube attached to the bottom of the rifle that can be loaded with multiple grenades". I believe this is a picture of one. Skimming through the National Firearms Act and Destructive device articles seems to confirm my idea, they talk about grenades but not grenade launchers. I was therefore also under the impression that some assault weapon definitions are talking about these types of grenade launchers, and not just mounts for grenade launchers. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The launcher would be covered under the destructive device point #2 as a non-sporting (non-shotgun) firearm with a bore greater than 1/2 inch. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. That makes sense. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 37mm varieties (also known as flare guns) would not be destructive devices themselves (as they are not 1/2 inch bore), and because they are common as "signaling devices" but having any non flare type ammo for them would bring them back under NFA via constructive intent. (not an authoritative link, but I have no reason to think this is not the real text of an ATF. ruling) Some flare guns are  mountable under an m4gery, so could possibly be something that would not be covered by the NFA but would be covered by the AWB, buts its a very small edge case (and having any non flare ammo would bring you right back to NFA in any case) http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/atfruling.95-3.txt Gaijin42 (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Fundamental to all of this, however, is that the 1994 FAWB explicitly banned (however ambiguously) "grenade launchers", as have other AWB's apparently. So "grenade launchers" (however ambiguously) constitute (a) feature(s) commonly used to define 'assault weapons'. Anastrophe (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That's what I think too. The sometimes banned feature is a grenade launcher -- whatever that means, and whether or not it's already very heavily restricted by the National Firearms Act. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, guys. I was out most of the day getting and recovering from a root canal. I have read and digested what you've written, and it fits with what I thought, but didn't want to assume I was right. In a nutshell - for the nonspecialist - the banned feature is a grenade launcher, and it's not unavailable to civilians, but may be regulated under the NFA. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No. The banned feature is the MOUNT, not the launcher itself. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought we'd cleared this up, but it appears to be in contention again. Should we be telling our readers that it is a grenade launcher mount that is a listed feature in assault weapons definitions? If so, can someone please provide reliable, verifiable sources that make this clear? Lightbreather (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Order of laws/legal vs. politics/political material
Currently, the hatnote on the article begins: "This article is about the United States legal and political term." The first paragraph of the lead begins, "Assault weapon is a political and legal term...." And the second graf of the lead begins, "In discussions about firearms laws and politics in the U.S...."

A week ago or more, I changed the order of the elements of the first paragraph of the lead to "legal and political" to reflect the order of the elements in the hatnote and second graf. The change was reverted. (If I could find the DIFF link, I would... but I can't, sorry.) So instead, I am now going to reverse the order in the hatnote and second graf instead to "political and legal" (in the hatnote) and "politics and law" (in the 2nd graf) to complement the order of the lead graf. This way, the hatnote, the lead graf, and the second graf will all have the order laws/legal and politics/political. Lightbreather (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As expected, when I checked, you did quite a bit more than that. Again we are seeing POV edits mixed in with gnome-type edits in these avalanches. Nobody has time to pick through and fix the bad while keeping the good. It is easier to revert the entire avalanche of undiscussed edits as I have done. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

A month ago, the hatnote on the article began: "This article is about the United States legal and political term." The first paragraph of the lead began, "Assault weapon is a political and legal term...." And the second graf of the lead began, "In discussions about firearms laws and politics in the U.S...."

On 4 DEC 2013, I changed the order of the elements of the first paragraph of the lead to "legal and political" to reflect the order of the elements in the hatnote and second graf, and I added WP:CONTEXTLINKs. The order change was reverted with edit summary "restore original order" (context links were kept).

So, on 23 DEC 2013, I reversed the order instead in the hatnote and second graf to "political and legal" and "politics and law" to complement the order of the lead graf. This way, the hatnote, the lead graf, and the second graf all had the order laws/legal politics/political and politics/political  laws/legal. Another editor reverted it among an avalanche of reversions, with no DIFFs or details about why. I am reverting that one part, with this discussion here - again. Lightbreather (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Anastrophe, Gaijin42, North8000: Would you please share your thoughts on this? Do you think that syncronizing the order of the elements in the hatnote, the lead paragraph, and the second paragraph is a BAD idea? I really don't care if it's legal/political (as I changed it to on Dec. 4) or political/legal (as I changed it to on Dec. 23), but I think it would benefit readers and editors, too. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(As an aside: All of my edits on Dec. 23 (three edits) and Dec. 24 (five edits) were done separately to make it easier for other active editors to undo parts they might object to, but the reversions were done in one big edit. How is that done?) Lightbreather (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Any objections to changing this compound, verbose sentence: To these two sentences?
 * The exact definition of the term in this context varies among each of the various jurisdictions limiting or prohibiting assault weapon manufacture, importation, sale, or possession, and legislative attempts are often made to change the definitions.
 * Legally, the definition of the term varies among the jurisdictions limiting or prohibiting assault weapon manufacture, importation, sale, or possession. Legislative attempts are often made to change the definitions.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Any objections adding "Politically," to the beginning of this sentence?
 * It has been asserted that the term is a media invention, or a term that was intended by gun control activists to foster confusion with the public over differences between full automatic and semi-automatic firearms, while others argue that the term was promulgated by the firearms industry itself.

The graf goes together with the one I've proposed to add "Legally," to the beginning of in previous post. --Lightbreather (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE to both As the lede says, the definitions are both legal and political. There is no citation showing that the definitions fall under one or the other, in fact the citations support that these fall under both definitions simultaneously. Also, adding qualifiers, such as "Legally" and "Politically" imply that what follows in the rest of the sentence is somehow unreal or unimportant. It waters down the rest of the sentence. This attempt to shoebox the ideas is innacurate and not supported by citations. leave it like it is. If it works don't fix it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉  04:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Anastrophe, Gaijin42, North8000: Would you please share your thoughts on this? Do you think that syncronizing the order of the elements in the hatnote, the lead paragraph, and the second paragraph is a BAD idea? I really don't care if it's legal/political (as I changed it to on Dec. 4) or political/legal (as I changed it to on Dec. 23), but I think it would benefit readers and editors, too.
 * Also, do you think the following paragraphs are each both about political and legal definitions? Before re-order:
 * The exact definition of the term in this context varies among the jurisdictions limiting or prohibiting assault weapon manufacture, importation, sale, or possession, and legislative attempts are often made to change the definitions. Governing and defining laws include the now defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. At that time, the U.S. Justice Department said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use." State and local laws, often derived from or including definitions verbatim from the expired federal law, also define the term.[citation needed]


 * It has been asserted that the term is a media invention or a term that was intended by gun control activists to foster confusion with the public over differences between full automatic and semi-automatic firearms, while others argue that the term was promulgated by the firearms industry itself.
 * After re-order:
 * Politically, it has been asserted that the term is a media invention, or a term that was intended by gun control activists to foster confusion with the public over differences between full automatic and semi-automatic firearms, while others argue that the term was promulgated by the firearms industry itself.
 * After re-order:
 * Politically, it has been asserted that the term is a media invention, or a term that was intended by gun control activists to foster confusion with the public over differences between full automatic and semi-automatic firearms, while others argue that the term was promulgated by the firearms industry itself.


 * Legally, the definition of the term varies among the various jurisdictions limiting or prohibiting assault weapon manufacture, importation, sale, or possession. Legislative attempts are often made to change the definitions. Governing and defining laws include the now defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. At that time, the U.S. Justice Department said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use." State and local laws, often derived from or including definitions verbatim from the expired federal law, also define the term.[citation needed]
 * Further, do you think that the section re-ordering on 24 DEC 2013 does not improve the structure and readability of the article? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Further, do you think that the section re-ordering on 24 DEC 2013 does not improve the structure and readability of the article? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Military-style changed to ergonomic, again
This sentence: In discussions about firearms laws and politics in the U.S., an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine and one or more cosmetic, military-style features, such as a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or a pistol grip.

Keeps getting changed to this: In discussions about firearms laws and politics in the U.S., an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine and one or more cosmetic, or ergonomic features, such as a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or a pistol grip.

(Same change hidden among other edits here (edit summary "fixed"?), and here (edit summary "for clarity"?).)

The cited source is this: ""

As I said in my edit summary of 23 DEC 2013: "'ergonomic' does not appear in source, whose 3rd graf says: '... the phrase "assault weapon" is often used to describe semi-automatic, military-style rifles.... These firearms have ... cosmetic features that make them look like military weapons.'")

Therefore, if it is important to the article (is it?) that the adjective "ergonomic" be added (added) to this sentence, another source should be added to support the inclusion. However, "ergonomic" is not a synonym for "military-style" so it should not replace it, IMHO. Lightbreather (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't need a citation for every little word in the article. Pistol grips are ergonomic features, we do not need a citation that says so. Just as we do not need a citation that says that cars are a form of "transportation". Citations are to confirm material that may be in dispute. Is somebody contending that some of the features are NOT ergonomic? There are plenty of citations that mention pistol grips as specifically banned, ie."ergonomic". Unless somebody is contending that the cosmetic features are something other than "military-style" (perhaps art-deco?) there is no reason to say it again, it's just bad English. The cosmetic features are already known to be "military-style", ie. They are "military" cosmetic features. The words "military-style" are therefore redundant, and POV in this case, because the wording implies that the features belong only to military weapons and not civilian weapons. The only wording that should be changed (or in this case added), is that at least one of the features is a safety feature, ie. The barrel shroud. I'll add that now while I am thinking about it. Thanx. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Anastrophe, Gaijin42, North8000, and ??? - Do you agree with Sue's reply? Lightbreather (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Collapsible stocks and pistol grips are ergonomic as they allow the rifle to be adjusted to fit the shooter. I see nothing wrong with the use of the word in those contexts. Barrel shrouds, sound suppressors and flash suppressors are actually safety devices. To protect shooters' vision, hearing, etc. If firearms were regulated by a consumer protection group like the antis have been screeching about for years, silencers would be mandatory.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

First just to clarify, (those first links just went to entire versions of the article) we're talking about the first sentence in the second paragraph of the lead.

My opinion is driven by prioritizing making the article accurate and informative for the typical reader. And the lead should summarize what is in the article (and sourcing is usually for what is in the body) so we we should feel free to provide an accurate informative summary. First I have a problem with the main wording of the sentence, although a few tweaks would fix that. That whole sentence is describing guns (e.g. the AR-15) that like like Assault rifles whereas the definitions in laws very often include totally different types of firearms (such as the pistor configurations that police carry due to magazine size). So most definitions include those described in the sentence plus others, so the 'defined as" is not accurate.  North8000  (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I just tweaked that a bit; now on to the discussion at hand.  North8000  (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Military style" alone would be deceptive to a typical reader.
 * I hate to bring this up given the amount of conversation we already had on it, but what would folks think of the idea of expanding that list to include the other ones (bayonet mount etc.) and remove all characterizing adjectives?   North8000  (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I can agree to that: Name features common to the definitions; use word "features," without adjectives; remove source citation (esp. if we name features not included in source). Save adjectives for body and source. Lightbreather (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * North: I made this change. Lightbreather (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reverted of course. What is it about the word "cosmetic"? Are we in for another six months or another year of this? This is classic WP:CRUSH behaviour, all over again, picking up from last year. Why? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Citations needed
Anybody looking for sources for the multiple "Citation needed" tags in this article? I looked for some when I put them there... I think I put most of them there, and many, many weeks ago. Going once, going twice...

I'm tired of these articles having these unsourced statements in them. Lightbreather (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that there is only one in there at the moment (I know that a lot just happened, so maybe my comment is off the target of your question) ) and it is on the first phrase in a sentence. IMO it is "sky is blue" preface/setup for the main statement / second half of the sentence which is explicitly sourced, and I'm guessing that the sources given for the sentence probably also cover the preface.  North8000  (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There were three, in the lead. Miguel has provided sources for two, which I am currently reading. He deleted the other, which I restored, pending discussion here. Lightbreather (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The majority of all so-called AW legislation lists rifles as a majority of the firerarms affected. Are you that slow that you cannot see that? Does that really need a citation? Do you assume people are that stupid that they can not see a list of 70 rifles, a dozen pistols and 8 shotguns and not arrive at the same conclusion?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Mike, dammit. I'm not one of "the guys" and I don't appreciate the insults. Please keep it on content and not on your opinion of my intellect. Lightbreather (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Pump/semi-auto shotgun info not for this article - but where?
This statement was in the lead of this (Assault weapon) article.
 * Some gun control advocates have attempted to place pump-action shotguns in this category.

After reading the sources, and some related sources - including these, , and others - it is clear that it's mis-stated and belongs somewhere else... But where?

These pump/semi-auto shotguns were/are not defined as assault weapons. They were considered in a bill before the Colorado legislature last year because they can be altered to hold more than eight shells. This falls under high-capacity magazine (or large capacity feeding device) bans, not the "term" assault weapon. (There's a whole, other discussion, about WP:REFERS.) Lightbreather (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There are many instances of actually defining those (and similar) explicitly as assault weapons.   Also, there are many more instances of putting such bans under the "sales title" of assault weapon weapon bans where it was not given as explicitly as a definition.  And this includes the sentence that you are referring to.   So perhaps the wording should be expanded to include something on the order of "banned in legislation described as "assault weapon" legislation.  North8000  (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "There are many instances of actually defining those (and similar) explicitly as assault weapons." All I'm asking for is citations, please. Lightbreather (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Look up Nevada SB396 from 2013 proposed by Segerblom. He tried to have pump shotguns classified as assault weapons.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is just less than of the applicable things covered by the sentence.  The res is is  firearm banned under the banner of "assault weapon" legislation even without being explicitly defined as such.  North8000  (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I won't dicker with you about this guys. I don't think it belongs in this article, about the "term" assault weapon... and certainly not in the lead. But if trying to (re)move it is gonna start a war... I made this change as a peace offering. I hope we can all live with it.
 * In 2013 in Colorado, some gun rights advocates said that a proposed high-capacity magazine ban would effectively make assault weapons of pump shotguns because they can be altered to hold more than eight shells - the proposed state limit for shotguns.
 * --Lightbreather (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I know of another case where a city seriously considered an "assault weapon" ban that would have banned all semi-automatic shotguns.  North8000  (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hitler reference in History of Term
I removed the following text from this article: "During World War II, Adolf Hitler personally chose the name 'Sturmgewehr' (literally, 'storm rifle', translated in English as 'assault rifle') to describe the first (the Sturmgewehr 44) of a new class of small arm, which combined the characteristics of a carbine, submachine gun and automatic rifle. A half-decade earlier the propaganda-friendly term 'Sturmgeschütz' ('storm gun') was similarly invented and applied to certain armored military vehicles, turretless tank chassis mounting artillery intended for direct fire support. Otherwise, in English, use of the term 'assault weapon' was restricted, prior to the 1980s, to naming certain minor military weapons systems, for example, the Rifleman's Assault Weapon, an American grenade launcher developed in 1977 for use with the M16 assault rifle." I did so because its misleading and potentially WP:SYNTH. First, the Lead of this article clearly states, "The term "assault weapon" is sometimes conflated [confused] with the term "assault rifle" which usually refers to military rifles capable of switching between semi-automatic and fully automatic fire," so the above text presents a conflict. Second, its an attempt to equate "assault weapon" with "assault rifle" making the terms interchangeable, which they are not. Third, its clearly out of context with the article for how the term is used. The article starts with, "Assault weapon is a political and legal term that refers to different types of firearms, and that has differing meanings, usages and purposes." And then goes on to mention the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. How Hitler factors into this context is beyond me. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Assault weapons are not assault rifles, those are two different things.  And on top of that, I'm not convinced that the term "assault rifle" comes from the term "Sturmgewehr".  At any rate, the Nazi / Hitler connection seems to be incorrect, and so is best omitted from the article. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, too. Lightbreather (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Article Sucks
The article is unecyclopedic, extremely wordy, has poor structure (sentence, paragraph, and overall, duplicates in excessive depth topics already covered in other articles, has many unreliable sources, suffers from much agenda pushing, and is currently owned by a few editors who regularly pat themselves on the back. I repaired many of the above things but much more needs to be done. Some will appreciate that especially readers. If some ignoramus wants to make it excessively wordy again remember this. Readers will not read it if it is to long and confusing. So what is the point of that? I am sure some agenda warriors could care less long as their agenda is promoted which is destroying the reputation of wikipedia. Wikipedia is rightly becoming known as a leftist dominated web site. Many people distrust it and many more are being taught to by agenda pushers.172.56.11.104 (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

For your pleasure or frustration (likely for agenda pushers) I present before: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assault_weapon&oldid=608606428 and after: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assault_weapon&oldid=608660366


 * OK 172, so now that you've had a chance to speak your mind, what are your specific suggestions for improvement? Do you have an outline or another article to suggest that might make for a good template to use? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this editor is blocked. Lightbreather (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nevermind --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal
I'd like to make a proposal. Can we work together to identify where in the article information is duplicated? Then, put our heads together about how to reorganize the material to cut down, or better yet eliminate, the duplication. Then, polish it up section-by-section. And then re-write the lead, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY? Lightbreather (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree If it's a change worth making, it's a change worth making today. Duplicative, unsourced, or otherwise unsuitable material should be removed.  Improve on the live version of the page, not some version back in the talk page or sandbox.  If any of the changes are controversial, they can be reverted and discussed until consensus is met.  Or maybe I'm not understanding your proposal?  Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's probably the right tack to take when handling duplicate or poorly sourced material, LB. If polishing and perfecting the sections works out and it becomes apparent that the lead needs to be re-written, it can be worked out here on the Talk Page to get the consensus form.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY
I would like to suggest that we temporarily pare the lead down to bare bones, finish improving the article, and then finish the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Lightbreather (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Could not agree more!! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I definitely disagree. "Lead follows body" is a suggestion for one possible way to write write a better article.  As it says right at the top of the page, it's "not a Wikipedia policy or guideline".  Let's not use it as an excuse to make the article worse instead of better.  If the current version of the lead, for this or any article, is a good summary of the subject, but does not correspond to what's in the body, then the answer is to make the body better, not to make the lead worse.  (This statement is not an endorsement of the current version of the lead section of this article.) — Mudwater (Talk) 06:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Disagree: As Mudwater says, why bother going backwards? Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Commercial term?
I noticed that the lede has been changed to say that "assault weapon" is a commercial term in addition to being a legal and political one. While we've got a source (Philip Peterson) saying that the term originated in the industry (presumably back in the 1980's I'm guessing?), I'm not aware of any commercial use of the term after the federal ban started. Do we have any sources saying that "assault weapon" is still in use as a commercial term after 1994? Or perhaps any evidence of the firearms industry commercially selling "assault weapons" today? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons, Fifth Edition Paperback – January, 2000  :Gun Digest Buyer's Guide To Assault Weapons September 30, 2008)
 * Gun Digest is an industry fan magazine-type publication. It ain't gonna publish a buyers guide to weapons that buyers can't buy. Felsic (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a good fan magazine-type publication; if you read the link, it says "This is the latest word on true assault weaponry in use today by international military and law enforcement organisations" and the cover matches the statement. In the lower left hand corner, the cover also has a box saying "Test Fire Reports:  Full-auto rifles, submachine guns, etc."  The assault weapons contemplated in this Wikipedia article, however, are civilian versions, not the models in use by the military and law enforcement that have full-auto rifle configuration, submachine guns, etc.  Do you have any links to items that show the firearms industry itself is commercially marketing civilian firearms as "assault weapons" to consumers?  Anytime in the 20 years after the manufacturing ban started would be fine.  Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Find it yourself. There's no expiration date on sources. If the "good" publication has a different definition then we oughta include that too. Felsic (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is no evidence of the firearms industry commercially marketing firearms to civilians as "assault weapons" in the past twenty years, then we're not going to be able to assert that "assault weapon" is a "commercial term" currently used to market them to civilians in the lede. Do you have any sources you can come up with to substantiate the claim, before I revert this WP:BOLD change back to the prior version of the lede?  Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're gonna revert material with a perfectly good source because you think that source is too old? Are you planning to do that everywhere on Wikipedia or just this one sentence? I dunno where you saw the word "currently" - I can't find it anywhere in the article. Or are you assuming that it's implied here and everywhere else that doesn't have a time-defined - "California is currently on the West Coast of the United States" - "A rifle is currently a long firearm" - "Physics is currently a branch of science." Let's make sure we've got recent sources for all those too, Felsic (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The source you provided is not "too old" - it's dated well after than ban. However, the source you cite does not establish that the firearms industry uses the term "assault weapon" to commercially market these types of weapons (semi-automatic, high capacity magazines, etc. etc).  It is my understanding that the industry avoids the term completely, as its customers tend to reject the term (for the political and legal reasons explained in the article).  Do you disagree?  If so, just provide the sourcing.  If not, we can't have the lede claiming that an assault weapon is a commercial term used to define firearms marketed to civilians, because "is" means currently, not decades ago (i.e., "was").  Do you understand what I'm getting at now?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're getting into OR territory. Find a source that says it's a former usage and then you can say it's a former usage. You're the one making the claim. The current lead just summarizes the source, which is what were supposed to be doing around here. Not making up new rules that say anything 20 years old isn't valid anymore. Felsic (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying "anything 20 years old isn't valid anymore". However, it is clear that the sourcing provided does not back up the contention that the term "assault weapon" is currently being used to market these types of firearms to civilians (that ended more than 20 years ago).  WP:BURDEN says that all content must be verifiable, and the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds the material.  You made the change adding "commercial term" to the lede, and sentence is styled in the present tense.  The policy further says that you must attribute any material that is challenged to a reliable published source, and the citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article.  I have challenged it, thus you need to point out to me precisely in your sourcing where you believe it substantiates your claim that the term "assault weapon" is currently ("is" in the present sense) a "commercial term" being used to market these types of firearms to civilians.  Are you going to do that?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with AC; there are no RS showing it currently being used as a commercial term. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Deleting sourced info? That's a bad idea. This seems to be a dispute over the meaning of the word "is". Felsic (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the lead sentence can be made more neutral by just saying that "assault weapon" is a term, and not trying to define what kind of a term it is. If the term is used for commercial purposes, as well as for purposes of banning or restricting certain firearms, that can be covered in the body of the article. Similarly by not saying in the lead sentence that it's a political term, we're making the lead more neutral. The lead sentence has a long history of different adjectives being added or deleted, but for these reasons I think it's better not to have any adjectives. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutrality is a very good thing; I too have watched this article for a long time, and have noticed editors invariably show up who can't seem to resist pushing the lede in a pro-gun rights or pro-gun control direction based on the way they want to frame the issue. The latest round in recent months started with an attempt to define "assault weapon" as a propaganda term used by anti-gun activists to restrict firearms (which rightly got one editor topic banned), followed by an attempt to downplay it's even a term in the American legal and political sense in order to recast it as a de facto "thing".  The entire article underscores how the term is a variable legislative restriction, with little collective political agreement, hence the longstanding lede accurately summarized the subject.  The recent change shifting the emphasis in the prime sentence from being a restriction to marketing (and a commercial aspect that has been non-existent for decades) struck me again as being more maneuvering.  However, I'm actually inclined to let the latest change stand (your edit here), and will instead flip the ordering of the 2nd and 3rd sentences to ensure the legislative restriction aspect is the next fact in the sequence.  I'll make that edit in a minute, then step back while other editors digest these changes and post their opinions on whether or not we're on a better track.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Weapons are things. That's how this article ought to describe them. The point here is to inform readers, not confuse them. Tell them what an assault weapon is. Then get into the controversy. Felsic (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * While there is always a place for WP:BOLD edits, you need to seek consensus for making major changes like this first. You already knew it was opposed and you left a notice on my talk page showing that you know this article is under discretionary sanctions, hence unilaterally making opposed changes without consensus is considered disruptive.  In the interim, please continue to lay out your case here on the Talk Page and invite other editors to comment.  Weapons are things, but in the case of the body text of this article, the focus is clearly on the American legal and political term.  Most of the reliable sourcing used in this article underscores that point and shows that it is controversial; you might do well to read through most of the citations to get an appreciation of it.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that this discussion represents a consensus? I don't see it. Felsic (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My edit summary says "please observe consensus building procedures", meaning you need to build consensus for your change first. Perhaps you're not familiar with WP:BRD either.  Are you having trouble understanding my edit summary?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble understanding why you think this requirement for consensus building doesn't apply to your edits. I'm having trouble understanding why you delete sourced text. And I'm having trouble understanding why the only allowable POV for this article is the NRA's. Felsic (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one making key changes to the long standing state of the article lede; you are. Some of your changes have been opposed, hence you need to build consensus for the changes you want to make, not me.  It doesn't work the other way around.  If you're having trouble understanding that, please seek out counsel from another editor you trust and get their input.  With regard to your statement that I'm "deleting sourced text", I honestly don't know what you're talking about; you should post a diff, or specify precisely what it is that I've allegedly deleted.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Where's the consensus for your text? Felsic (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not "mine"; what you see in the article is the status quo, the end result of many edits by many editors. The relevant question here is not "where's the consensus for the status quo?", but "where's the consensus for the (opposed) changes?"  You don't appear to be inclined to believe me, so you should seek counsel from an editor you trust and ask them to explain it.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the explanation. Status quo stonewalling I don't have time for this crap. Felsic (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to read that essay a little closer. Did you overlook the part in the lede about substantive objections?  Stonewalling takes place when there are no substantive objections, and the editor doing the reverting has no argument to make.  I've made my argument clear, and it's here for other editors to examine and discuss.  Still disagree?  Discuss this with someone you trust to give you a fair answer.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We're arguing over the definition of "is"? Hey, Bill Clinton, can we get your help over here?
 * So long as we make it clear that it is a commercial term as well as a political and legal term, then it ain't bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felsic (talk • contribs) 16:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The term definitely had commercial use before the assault weapons ban of 1994. This was because the industry had experienced a slump in hand gun sales in the 1980's and wanted to use a new description to sell civilian look-alike copies of military weapons that were actually semi-automatics.  After the ban got passed, it became illegal for firearms manufacturers to make them, hence after 1994 the industry dropped the term entirely.  Even after the federal ban ended in 2004, the industry has not returned to using that term and it's easy to see why.  For more than 20 years now, the usage of the term "assault weapon" is entirely legal and political, with no commercial or marketing aspects.  Do you agree with these statements, or do you contend that these types of firearms are still being marketed by the industry to civilians as "assault weapons"?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not interested in a talk page debate. Show me your sources. Felsic (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source showing that the firearms industry marketed "assault weapons" to civilians after the federal government passed legislation twenty years ago making it illegal to make them? How could they market "assault weapons" to civilians if they were't even allowed to manufacture or sell them?  Besides defying all logic and rational credibility here on the Talk Page, what are your sources exactly?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I take it that you can't find a logical response to this, a sign that maybe you should rethink your assumptions. In the interim, I noticed the source you wanted to use to add commercial marketing to the lede in present tense contained this:  "After the passage of the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons, Mr. Peterson said, the gun industry moved to shame or ridicule anyone who used “assault weapon” to describe anything other than firearms capable of full automatic fire."  Given that it's in your own source on how the industry reacted, how do you reconcile that?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The answer is in your question: After the passage of the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons... Before that, there was no concerted effort to label "assault weapon." Lightbreather (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment is difficult to decipher, so you may want to clarify your point. Are you in agreement that the industry stopped trying to market certain types of firearms to civilians as "assault weapons" after 1994, or do you take the position that they have continued to do so up until the present?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * AzureCitizn - you're the one claiming that the usage is obsolete, so the burden is on you. Which is where this thread has been circling since it started. Felsic (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not addressing the issue Felsic. How can you maintain that the industry kept using the term to market firearms to civilians after 1994 when your own source says the industry moved to shame or ridicule anyone who used the term "assault weapon" after 1994?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Answer "C"
Folks, isn't it both? The article states that it came into widespread use as a political term in 1985 by a politician, Art Agnos. But obviously its been adopted by the media and "industry" in general. A Google shopping search shows that a company uses the term as a name for one of their automotive products of all things. I remember making the case recently that a term was a "neologism" because it had not made it into popular use, but this term seems to have gained pretty wide acceptance if its being used in marketing for car parts. My 2 cents... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You've got that right. Has anyone got a source that this politician was the first to use it or is that just our own original research? Felsic (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't actually say that Agnos was the first to use it, it just reports that he used it when introducing legislation in the California State Assembly. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of neutral and reliable secondary sources pinpointing just exactly how it all got started, or who used it first.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was pretty careful when I drafted that section. I knew that Agnos was not the first, but it started getting more attention after he used it. Politics and politicians kind of work that way. We do need to pay careful attention to the timeline for the term and not just focus on its recent use and/or misuse. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed, a chronological timeline in the article that laid out the evolution of the term and the changes might be really useful, if only quality sources could establish what it was. If you look at all the recent material, the one thing that stands out the most is that "assault weapon" is the most contentious and disputed term of all the loaded language in the rights vs control debates.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk)

Legislative definitions
Right now we have "Common attributes used in legislative definitions of assault weapons include:
 * Semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine
 * Folding or telescoping (collapsible) stock, which reduces the overall length of the firearm
 * Pistol grip, whether rifle, shotgun, or pistol
 * Bayonet lug, which allows the mounting of a bayonet
 * Threaded barrel, which can accept devices such as a flash suppressor, Suppressor, compensator or muzzle brake
 * Grenade launcher
 * Barrel shroud, which prevents burning of shooter's arm or hand as a safety device."

This isn't comprehensive, and it seems to apply purely to rifles. Is it worth my time to compile a more exhaustive list of features that have been used to define assault weapons under various federal, state, and local laws? If so, I'm going to cite the laws/regulations themselves. Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is the article to detail every law/regulation. This article, IMO, should give common attributes and let the "law" articles give the derails. Lightbreather (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Right now we don't even do that - pistols and shotguns are left out entirely. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Modern sporting rifle
Modern sporting rifle is the same thing with a different name. Oughta just merge 'em. Felsic (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Disagree: you can have a ban-compliant AR-15 that is a MSR without being an AW. The two terms have some overlap, but it is not complete, especially given the major disagreements over what an AW is among different jurisdictions.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Disagree: Yeah, I'm with on this one. There are quite a few shows on the Outdoor Channel that showcase MSR's used in competition that are rather "fancy looking", but hardly military in nature or use. My wife thinks that many of the "hot pink" parts are cute... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not even about use - there are guns like these that are MSRs while being specifically designed not to be AWs. There's also some other rifle that I saw once but can't remember the name of - it takes AR-15 uppers and magazines, but has a non-pistol grip lower and stock.  Not an AW, but definitely a MSR.  Likewise, you have stuff like replica (semi-auto) Thompson guns and M1 carbines with flash hiders or bayonet lugs that are AWs, but not "modern."  A Remington Model 8 with a muzzle brake or flash hider is an AW in some jurisdictions, but it could be over 100 years old. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow, those are some ugly guns, but I get your point. I think together, we made our case. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So we're making decisions based on an anonymous editor's pink rifle? Gimme a break.
 * Gun-rights advocates prefer the term modern sporting rifles.


 * AR15s are assault weapons and they are modern sporting rifles. Same thing. Felsic (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All AR-15s are MSRs, but not all AR-15s are AWs. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if it were that easy, but it isn't. If you're claiming that every firearm based on the AR platform is an "assault weapon", then my reply is that you just don't know what you're talking about. That's like saying that every engine built using a Chevy V8 smallblock is a "racing engine" or that every tool that consists of a "big piece of metal stuck on the end of a stick" must be a shovel. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As someone who works in the industry, "assault weapon" doesn't give you any specifics on the firearm. An M1-carbine with a folding stock meets enough points to be an "assault weapon." For the sake of clarity, and to make Wikipedia as factually correct, this merge needs to occur.Dreg102 16:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreg102 (talk • contribs)
 * you just said the two terms were different. Why would we merge them? Something can be an AW without being a MSR, and vice versa. They are conceptually different as well - one is a marketing term for certain firearms, and the other is a legal term for different firearms. There is some overlap, but certainly not enough to justify a merge. Faceless Enemy (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Those who don't know anything about firearms use the term when they are refering to a modern sporting rifle. A MSR is any rifle based upon the AR-15 platform. When any source refers to "assault weapons" they are referring to a modern sporting rifle. AW is a political term, and used to market gun control. Dreg102 01:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreg102 (talk • contribs) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As you pointed out, an M1 Carbine with a folding stock is an assault weapon in some jurisdictions. It's definitely not a modern sporting rifle though. And are you proposing that the AW page be merged to the MSR page, or vice versa? This proposal is to delete the MSR page and put its content on the AW page. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree: Most emphatically. “Assault Weapon” itself is a political term, not a technical term, and is used as a weasel word to terroriᵶe those ignorant of the facts. If anything, this entire page should be removed, with a blurb added to the “Assault Rifles” page “Assault rifles (sometimes called “assault weapons”)” and nothing more.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To me, the meaning of "assault weapon" is the weapon that one would choose for CQB such as an MP5.

Neutral lead
Gimme a break - "In the United States, assault weapon is a political term used by anti gun advocacy groups to define and restrict specific firearms." You guys call that neutral? 162.119.231.132 (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes. I would have used "propaganda" rather that "political".   — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've returned the first sentence of the lede to the way it read prior to November 2014, before someone changed it from "a legal and political term used in firearms laws" to "a term used by anti gun advocacy groups", which clearly isn't neutral and should have been discussed here on the Talk Page first. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For the lead, one question is whether or not the current version is neutral. Another, separate question is how best to briefly define the term technically.  Skipping the neutrality issues for now, I'm going to change it from "Definitions usually include semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and one or more tactical, cosmetic, ergonomic, or safety features, such as a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or barrel shroud, respectively" to "Definitions usually include semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud".  This is better for three reasons.  (1) By far the most common definitions include the combination of detachable magazine and pistol grip.  The rest tends to vary a lot.  (2) It omits, for the lead paragraph, the debate about whether the features are functional, cosmetic, or whatever.  That should be covered later in the article.  For the lead it's better just to say that they're features.  (3) The word "respectively" doesn't make sense in this sentence. — Mudwater (Talk) 20:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What is notable, sourced, and true is that it is used by anti-gun groups. All else is secondary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's also notable and sourced that it has been used by Federal government officials and legislators in passing laws, state governments, the media and social commentators, and even by some in the firearms industry itself. Whose point of view or "truth" are we trying to emphasize then by editing the first sentence of the lede to define it as propaganda by anti-gun groups to restrict firearms?  Keeping an article like this NPOV should be our chief concern.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that the term is used only by or referring to anti-gun activists seems more important than details of the vague and variable "definition" of the term. We can eeasily find sources for specific definitions; finding a source for what the definitions have in common probably was difficult, but I see it has been done. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On second thought, that it is used to restrict firearms seems adequate to indicate that it is only used by anti-gun groups. I often oppose "piling on", even when all the facts are properly sourced and otherwise relevant.  The phrase "anti-gun advocacy groups" is clearly neutral, but unnecessary.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"Assault weapon" is a term created by gun manufacturers and used by the gun press. The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons 2007 ISBN 0896894983. To pretend otherwise is willful ignorance, and in this article it's POV-pushing. I'm going to put back a common-sense definition in the lead. Leave the spin to somewhere else. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This article needs lots of work, and that's a good start. Lightbreather (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How about we go by WP:LEAD and make it a summary of the article. The term was put into widespread use by a politician, Art Agnos, and the article states this. As Lightbreather states, the article needs work and per WP:LEAD, the last step in that process is drafting it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The term was put into widespread use by a politician, Art Agnos, and the article states this. No, the article does not state this. Agnos is one of several sources attributed to the term, and no preponderance of high-quality RS supports having Wikipedia say that Agnos put it into widespread use. In fact, do the best-quality sources support calling it a political term? It's just a term - in some cases, a legal term. Lightbreather (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not in those exact words, but it traces its first public use to Agnos, can we agree on that? As it being just a term, its been used by politicians far more than it has be the industry. I think one of your Google searches pre-Tban proved that LB. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I believed we (editors of this article) discussed this before our (your and my) Tban. I'm working on a couple other articles right now, too, but I suggest we review some of those conversations. Lightbreather (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a HIGHLY disputed claim. Josh SUGARMANN created the term in the 1988 propaganda piece Assault Weapons and Accessories in America.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Define it first, then get into the history of the term. "An assault weapon is generally defined as a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine and one or more additional features, such as a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or barrel shroud, respectively." You can't say that's a false definition. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Pistol" is a term used to define a handgun
 * In the United States, "rifle" is a legal and political term used in firearms laws to define and restrict specific firearms.
 * "United Sates" is a political and legal term used to define and limit a North American nation.
 * This is a easy way to write great lead sentences. Instead of writing about the topic itself, first characterize it as merely a "term". 162.119.231.132 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

In the United States, assault weapon is a legal and political term used in firearms laws to define and restrict specific firearms. Definitions usually include semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud.
 * I don't see any consensus around here for that version. Are we writing about guns or about terms? 162.119.231.132 (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I have gotten used to accepting "term" language in gun-control articles here on Wikipedia because I have been outnumbered for so long by editors who insist that we must present these things as terms instead of what they are. Your examples illustrate the point perfectly. I think it would be much better, as a reflection of what the majority of high-quality RS say, to lead with the simplified:
 * An assault weapon is generally defined as a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine and one or more additional features, such as a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or barrel shroud, respectively.
 * Leave the semantics for later. Lightbreather (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The lede of an article is supposed to summarize the concept and contents of the article as a whole. If you look at the article body, it is clear that it is describing the concept of what an "assault weapon" is in its legal and political context in the United States. Given the divisive and charged nature of the term, edits made to sway the introduction framing of the first sentence of the lede more to one sides liking or the other are ill advised and unproductive. The POV-biased attempt in recent months by some to define it as propaganda used by anti-gun advocacy groups to restrict firearms is one example. Similarly, trying to define an assault weapon as a particular de facto "thing" in and of itself before proceeding on to the legal and political aspects gives the appearance of one side trying to frame the debate again at the onset. There is very little cultural and collective agreement in the nation on exactly what an assault weapon "is" and this is reflected in the sourcing. In the United States, the term's primary meaning flows from its legal and political context, hence the article is written accordingly, hence the lede reflects this. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the lede does and should reflect that the meaning flows from its legal and political context. And, this context is different in each state and under now-expired Federal laws, too. This is about all that can be said. It is not solely about semi-automatic firearms, for, in California, single-shot, bolt-action .50 BMG rifles are always considered assault weapons, because they are legally classified as such. (The "semi-automatic" descriptor dates back to the now expired Federal assault weapons ban.) Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm under the impression that California does not define .50 BMG rifles as assault weapons, and instead bans them separately, using the same or similar restrictions.  — Mudwater (Talk) 01:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A distinction with little difference, as the same form is used for registering both by the state, with no distinctions existing on the form: see here.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The end result is the same since they are both banned, but it is correct to say that a .50 BMG is not legally classified nor defined as an assault weapon in California. On my next edit, I will tweak the article slightly to clarify that.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have tweaked it a bit further. The ambiguity in California's law was done for a reason, such that if Assault Weapons became legal, then .50 BMG Rifles would still be illegal.  On the other hand, if .50 BMG Rifles became legal due to Second Amendment grounds, then Assault Weapons would still be illegal.  We should probably maintain the same ambiguity here.  Further tweaking would be fine, with appropriate sources, of course.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think your logic on the ban's legislative purposing/reasoning is correct, but maintaining the ambiguity here on Wikipedia does not follow; legally and technically, .50 BMGs are not assault weapons, hence if we're going to mention them here on the "assault weapon" article, we should be specific for the reader's understanding. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Under California Law, .50 BMG Rifles are Assault Weapons,except when they are not. :-)  This might come about from a future court ruling, of course.  At the present time, though, they are legally indistinguishable under existing California Law.   Further tweaks would be fine, of course.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no consensus for this version of the lead: "In the United States, assault weapon is a legal and political term used in firearms laws to define and restrict specific firearms." The text I edited in is much more direct and doesn't try to assume a POV in the lead: "An assault weapon is generally defined as a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine and one or more additional features, such as a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or barrel shroud." If someone has a good source saying an assault weapon is not a firearm then let's see it. Felsic (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is going to be hard to find a source that says a weapon is not a weapon. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Then why do you keep reverting to a lead sentence which says that? If there's no source then it shouldn't be in the article. An assault weapon is a firearm. The lead's gotta say that much, at least. Felsic (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Assault weapons are not specific firearms, except as defined in specific jurisdictions. "Assault weapon" is a purely legal and political term.  If a guy from outside the US wants to know what an assault weapon is, and comes to Wikipedia, then we should clearly define it as being a legal and political term, not as some specific firearm, for it isn't.  What POV issue is there in defining it as it is?  A pump action shotgun with a revolving magazine is an assault weapon, in California.  But, the same shotgun in Florida is not an assault weapon.  Readers want to know what an assault weapon is.  We owe them an understanding of what they are.  But, they are not specific firearms, except in specific jurisdictions, sometimes even in counties and cities within states, with different definitions than what is defined under state law.  It is a very confusing legal and political jungle.  The readers should be provided with enough data to decide for themselves.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Show me the sources that say an assault weapon is a term and not a firearm. Felsic (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. Here's one:   There are several places in this article that explains that Assault Weapon is a term, not a specific firearm.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Good thing you found that. I've added it to the lead so that the "term" is defined more correctly. It doesn't exist just to "define and restrict" guns. It was created to market them. Felsic (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

An assault rifle by definition is a "selective fire" weapon it has nothing to do with being semi-automatic or being "black" or having a "pistol Grip". Selective fire means they can be full automatic or semi-automatic select-able on the weapon. AR-15's are not assault rifles because they are not selective fire weapons. Semi automatic rifles have been used by American Hunters and for sporting purposes since the 1890's. Adding a pistol grip does not mean its an assault weapon. The term is a political term being used to deny peoples rights. (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.248.186 (talk)


 * As the discussion ended up nowhere and the current definition leaves too much room for interpretation I added the word controversial. As it is even clear by the discussion here the opinions on the definition vary wildely. Contested was also an option, but that would imho not cover it correctly. Leaving it as it was, was however not entirely acceptable in my opinion as it leaves out that the views on the definition vary. Which would defacto be not neutral as siding with the anti-gun side of the discussion. Making clear that it's meaning is not widely accepted, nor is actually well defined acknowledges both sides of the discussion without taking sides. If this is not good, the article would need some serious overhaul and probably need a controversy section. 91.159.55.220 (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

"Controversial"
and, WP:LABEL discourages the use of "controversial", instead encouraging editors to fully explain any controversy in neutral terms. I have reverted for now. While the term itself has been the source of plenty of controversy, I'd rather not use the word "controversial" if we can avoid it. Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * As I suggested in the talk page higher up the alternative is to write a whole section about the controversy. Will this then be accepted? As you clearly agree the term is riddled with controversy... I think in this specific case it is hard to avoid. And as I explained something is needed to improve the articles neutrality. 91.159.55.220 (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Initially, I reverted a more extensive change to the first paragraph. I commented at some length on (talk) on changes to the article. I noted that I would not oppose the use of the word controversial in the opening paragraph, as that seems to be the point of later text in the article, but that I could not support any other additions or speak for others about the single word addition. I also noted that since similar changes or proposals had been the subject of talk page debate, additions or changes to the article might need further talk page discussion in order to reach a consensus. I suggested consideration of whether the current wording sufficiently covered the main points of the debate over what should be said about the controversy over the term assault weapon and its origin, which I think clearly exists based on some research of the matter. Other than that, I have formed no opinion on whether further exposition is necessary. In view of my other editing priorities and current "real life" activities, including those connected to the approaching holidays, I do not believe I have time to participate in further development of the article and will leave it to others with more knowledge and interest. Donner60 (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I too might not have time to actively work on this article. But I would encourage interested editors to look at older versions of the lead section, some of which directly addressed the controversy or argument.  Here's a version of the lead from about ten months ago that had some merit, I thought. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Is the second-to-last sentence of the lead paragraph not adequate ("The origins of the term are muddled...")? Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No it is not adequate as it only talks about the origin. The reason why I added controversial is because the term is not neutral. As you can see from the discussion there is the anti-gun angle which uses it currently to get an emotional reaction, as assault weapon indeed sounds like something nobody needs. From a gun proponent standpoint the term is negatively loaded, since it attributes capabilities that are not there, as they are reserved for military firearms. Furthermore since there is no factual technical definition, as it covers so many different things as a legal term the meaning stays unclear. This makes that the term is actively rejected and embraced depending on which side you're on. Which also has the negative side-effect no discussion is possible as it takes the attention away from the facts. So it is not just a badly defined term with unclear origins, it's use is not neutral. If you think for yourself, which word choice is most likely to get a reaction assault weapon (loaded/controversial term) or semi-automatic firearm (factual, technical term). You could relate it to the famous H2O incident where people interviewed were willing to ban dihydrogen-monoxide as they did not understand it was not some mystery chemical but just water ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw ) 91.159.55.220 (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Basic Honesty Requires This Page Be Deleted.
“Assault Weapon” itself is a political term, not a technical term, and is used as a weasel word to terroriᵶe those ignorant of the facts. Primary Source: http://mic.com/articles/23568/what-is-an-assault-weapon-nothing-more-than-a-scary-term-created-by-politicians-and-the-media; The fact that it is a position piece in no way detracts from the fact that the article they first published this in was printed in the Stanford Law and Policy Review (a publication of Stanford University). This entire page should be removed, with a blurb added to the “Assault Rifles” page “Assault rifles (sometimes called “assault weapons”)” and nothing more. Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. I found it strange there was actually a wiki page for a made up term, that is also rather undefined. --Mapsfly (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * it is defined in the Miriam Webster Dictionary, the Collins English Dictionary and the Encyclopedia Brittanica to name a few legitimate sources. Opinions on propaganda surrounding the term are not relevant to the fact that it is now a relatively common phrase in the English language; thus, it has a place here on wikipedia.  Not wanting a phrase to exist is a silly reason for deleting it from a dictionary. 20:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:101:830C:A4FA:1F5:2F31:358 (talk)