Talk:Assault weapon/Archive 8

Lead to read 'The term "assault weapon" is most commonly used by advocates of gun control'
The edit I made has been reverted, and I would like to discuss its validity.

Previously the article read "The term 'assault weapon' is most often by proponents of gun control" which I reworded to say "The term 'assault weapon' is most commonly used by advocates of gun control" to better conform to Wikipedia's encyclopaedic tone.

Addressing the adequacy of NY times article as a source:

"It was much the same in the early 1990s when Democrats created and then banned a category of guns they called “assault weapons.”

That quote above makes it clear that it was the DEMOCRATS (leftist anti-gun people) that "created" the term and then "banned" these so-called "assault weapons", which is even in quotes in the NY times article itself. It is a completely false assumption that this is a term that is used by everyone. Thus, I propose the above modification or something along those lines.

Riverbend21 (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * If we're going to say in the very first line that it's most commonly used by advocates of gun control, there should be an abundance of sources saying so explicitly, or nearly so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand the POV but I don't think we should be stating that in the opening sentence. I think later in the article we say the term is disputed.  I don't think we need to open with it.  Also it may not be factually correct or proveable.  How would we define if someone using the term is a gun control advocate vs just using a term they have heard? Springee (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We need a source that explicitly says that this term is mostly used by proponents for gun control, or words to that effect. Claiming that Democrats at some point used the term "assault weapon" and this proves that the term is used by some group is textbook original research which is not acceptable as a source for statements of fact in Wikipedia articles. Sjö (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to draw your attention to the following...
 * The NYT article used in the first line of the lead FAILS to support the claim that EVERYONE in the US uses the term "assault weapon".
 * This is what it says:
 * "The label, applied to a group of firearms sold on the civilian market, has become so politicized in recent decades that where people stand on the gun issue can often be deduced by whether they use the term."
 * Here
 * 1. It acknowledges different viewpoints (splits sides) on the term. (not universal)
 * 2. It says "where people stand on the gun issue can often be deduced by whether they use the term."
 * It is clear from that quote that "assault weapon" IS a term used by gun control activists and other pro-gun people prefer the terms "tactical rifle", "modern sporting rifle", etc.
 * So, to say "The term assault weapon is used in the United States to define various types of firearms." in the lead, does not adequately cover the scope of its usage, is not in accordance with NPOV (since it wrongly assumes uniformity in the usage of the term) and is simply incorrect. Riverbend21 (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the "most commonly used by" is an overreach, but that just "commonly used by advocates of gun control" is sky-is blue accurate and also informative. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's commonly used by advocates of gun control (and I'm sure we could find some citations), but it's also commonly used by news media and academic researchers. It's most noticeably not commonly used by opponents of gun control. However framed, this factoid is not due for the very first sentence, as few sources (at least judging by what's been shown so far) focus on this aspect of the topic. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with User:North8000 and User:Riverbend21, I think that the changes suggested by User:North8000 are reasonable enough to make the article more accurate and informative. Onto User:Riverbend21's point, it seems that the first mentions of the term assault weapon arise from the gun control movement and in modern usage of the term, it is generally gun control advocates that use the word. Gun rights advocates or neutral parties stick to calling the rifles by their model names such as AR-15 and AK-47 since the term "assault rifle" is meant to sensationalize the weapons for political purposes. Firefly115 (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

To recap, in vague terms, I agree with Riverbend21. I also agree with the statement that of people with a "side" on the issue, one side uses it and the other doesn't. The term uses the word "assault" to describe the most common all purpose rifle in the US, and it also gives the false impression that they are the weapons that the military uses. I just disagree with the "most" word in there because it broadens it into a statement about overall use of the term which also includes usage by neutral and misled people. North8000 (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * disagree. It's primarily used in a legislative context, not necessarily by proponents of that legislation. VQuakr (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Your statement does not directly address mine and so does necessarily conflict with mine. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the statement that of people with a "side" on the issue, one side uses it and the other doesn't. I was replying to/addressing this. VQuakr (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't see any fundamental disagreement. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You would still need a source that explicitly says that people on one side of the argument use the term. The source does not say that and it is not enough to support such a broad statement. If it is really that obvious it should not be hard to find a source.Sjö (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"Assault weapon" is a term almost exclusively used by persons who wish to restrict civilian firearm ownership, i.e. those in favor of gun control policies.

A lead that omits to differentiate between the users and non-users of the term and instead generalizes its usage across the country as a whole is misleading. Fenharrow (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you basing this assessment on what has been said in reliable sources? Can we see these sources? - Aoidh (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm in the camp that is well-informed about firearms. It's also patent - to me - that the primary users of the term are three: The problem is, we can't simply say that "most" of the users of the term are "X", without a metric from an actual reliable source, as "most" is a claim of majority, and with upwards of 330,000,000 Americans (and quite a few outside the US, but we largely aren't focused on them on this matter), it's damnably hard to quantify such a claim. In fact, it's impossible. On that basis, no, we can't make a claim of "most", "all" or whatever. Likewise, it's not a generalization across the country as a whole if we do not quantify at all that which cannot be quantified reliably. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Those in the mainstream media, largely left of center, largely anti-gun, who intentionally ambiguate using the term in order to convince readers/viewers/listeners that america is floating in a sea of fully automatic firearms.
 * 2) Those in the mainstream media who aren't the brightest bulbs in the knife-drawer, who parrot this without realizing they're being led around by the nose by ideologues;
 * 3) The readers/viewers/listeners who aren't terribly informed about firearms and don't care to be, who take at face-value that which the respected, authoritative mainstream media feed them.

Slight tweaks in the spirit of the above
I recently made some edits that were in the spirit of the above and tried to weigh all sides and sources. I specifically made the edits not in the lead lines, keeping in mind comments put forth by who made good points about placement of text as it relates to WP:DUE and WP:Weight. That said, I think some of the changes that I suggested that were reverted by merit inclusion. I will refrain from reverting VQuakr's reversion of my latest edit, but will leave it to the rest of you to decide whether or not to change it back to what I had edited. , and  also have raised some other points that I tried to consider. TY. — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 15:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, you will "refrain" from reverting given that that's mandatory. All of the most recent proposed edits were to the lead. Why are you making edits in the spirit of the above when there rather obviously isn't consensus for those edits? Proposed edit is factually inaccurate and therefore is a non-starter. The term originated in firearms ads and was later used in a legislative context (though I don't know if it was independently developed or actually gleaned from those ads). The rest of the proposed edit also has some issues and generally is less tightly worded. VQuakr (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the purpose of this line, "...yes, you will 'refrain' from reverting given that that's mandatory." I am not being confrontational. Are you? — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 16:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I will refrain from reverting VQuakr's reversion of my latest edit.... Explicitly noting you're not going to do something implies it's an option; that's what I was trying to address. If I got the wrong impression in what you were trying to say then I apologize and hope we can move on. VQuakr (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair. I am always open to someone admitting a misunderstanding and moving on. Very rare to find on the internet. Good on you! TY. — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 16:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to re-iterate my objections to content that is roughly equivalent to "this term is commonly used by opponents of gun control". So far, we lack the solid source support that such a statement requires. If we find it, I would support inclusion in the body, and possible a brief summary in the second paragraph of the lead. Unless this is a key feature of RS coverage, as demonstrated by citation to multiple high-quality sources that explicitly make such a statement, inclusion in the first paragraph is undue. Most recently, this content was added cited to this article in The Hill. The source looks good to me and I hope we can use it in other ways. Nothing in it comes close to supporting "commonly used by advocates of gun control". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead line should be changed to reflect facts
Does this source really support the first line of the lead? "In the United States, the term assault weapon is used to legally define firearms with specified characteristics."

I believe that it doesn't. Nowhere in the source it can be inferred that '"assault weapon" is used to '"LEGALLY" define firearms with specified characteristics'

While the sources previously provided such as this, this and this at least acknowledge that there are politically divided sides that lean either toward or against using that term.

I believe it is important to consider the validity of this source before placing it on the first line of the lead in order to maintain the neutrality of the article and provide accurate information. Riverbend21 (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that "legally" is unsupported by the source and I'd support removing the word. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Make sense to remove the word. The term can be used to group weapons regardless of whether it is in a legal context. Riverbend I don't understand what you are saying about "validity" in your last sentence. VQuakr (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated per WP:BRD to remove "legally." — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 16:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say that the entire line is unsupported by the source provided. The line should either be rewritten or removed. Riverbend21 (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Firefangledfeathers@VQuakr Riverbend21 (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "the entire line" is the first sentence of the article. I don't view just removing it as a tenable option. What do you propose replacing it with? VQuakr (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe you are mistaken. The article does not explicitly state that line. Anyway, here is what I believe fits better with the content of the sources:
 * "In the United States, the term "assault weapon" has a variable definition based on the context and group using the term. While gun control groups typically use the term "assault weapon" to refer to a broad array of firearms, gun rights groups prefer more technical terms such as "semi-automatic" weapons or "fully automatic" weapons."
 * This explanation seems neutral and fair to me, considering the ambiguity surrounding the various aspects of the term. Riverbend21 (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's good to fix it but a couple notes. The firearms that the term is applied to are commonly owned firearms. "Fully automatic weapons" manufactured in the last 36 years are illegal for civilians to own in the US and fully automatic weapons older than that are very very expensive and difficult to own.  And "semi-automtic" refers to about 1/2 of all firearms and so is not descriptive of the firearms that the subject term is commonly applied to.       The term is most commonly applied to AR-15 style firearms, and the most common term amongst gun owners and rights organizations for AR-15 style firearms is "All purpose rifle" North8000 (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it would be good to include alternative terms. Could we add a bit about them at the end of §History of terminology? What are some good sources that discuss "all purpose rifle"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * the term I see most commonly used is "modern sporting rifle", not "all purpose rifle". The prior currently redirects to AR-15 style rifle, which probably remains a better target for it. Plus various AW laws have also covered models of shotguns and pistols that definitely are not any sort of rifle. VQuakr (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify I meant the first line of our article, not the NYT one. No, this proposed rewrite doesn't work at all. I'm not aware of any AW legislation that has covered all semi-autos, and automatic weapons are generally not included in US AW legislation because they are already heavily regulated under existing laws and bans. "All purpose rifle" is not a synonym; that can refer to flexible platform rifles of any pattern including bolt-actions and is more of a marketing term than anything else. Also, as noted in our article, the term "assault weapon" was coined by an advertiser, not by "gun control groups". The term is commonly used when discussing gun control legislation, regardless of the writer's opinion of said legislation. VQuakr (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that I overall agree with you but I'm going to quibble or make some side point.  By that line of reasoning, the article should not exist because it is not a distinct topic.  Or it should exist as just an article on a vague variable term.  Something with a vague and variable meaning by definition has no synonym. For example the pejorative terms Gay agenda, Anchor baby, Political correctness have no synonyms and really don't refer to a distinct set of items, but people who are not hostile to the things that the terms target will always use different words for the targeted items. Finally, it matters who promulgates the term much more than who originally invented it. North8000 (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * but in this case, who promulgates the term has varied over time. To my understanding it became a pejorative term to the "pro2A" crowd only in the mid-2000's. Yes, this is already explicitly an article about the term and its varying, related uses. That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist, though. VQuakr (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I gave the lead sentence a re-read and I think it's fully supported by the NYT article used as a source. The NYT notes, Advocates of an assault weapons ban argue that the designation should apply to firearms like those used in the Newtown, Conn., shootings and other recent mass killings — semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines and “military” features like pistol grips, flash suppressors and collapsible or folding stocks and [opponents of gun control efforts] argue that any attempt to ban “assault weapons” is misguided because the guns under discussion differ from many other firearms only in their styling. That's both sides of the spectrum agreeing that AWs are defined by what we tersely, neutrally summarize as "specified characteristics". VQuakr (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Responding to your post above, I think that you are right. For AR-15 style firearms, "modern sporting rifle" has more standing and usage as a term for AR-15 style firearms than "all purpose rifle".North8000 (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But to be clear, that's not a synonym for Assault Weapon. For example, the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban included models of shotgun and pistol. VQuakr (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly. There is no such thing as a synonym for a vague misleading term with continuously changing meanings. North8000 (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm going to apologize in advance if I didn't understand all the arguments made above. I think what we are seeing here is the confusion around several articles that was largely hashed out 4 or 5 years back.  Please forgive me if I get some of the history wrong.  We had/have several overlapping articles generally related to "modern sporting rifles"/"assault weapons".  I think initially we had a "modern sporting rifle" article that was meant to cover semi-automatic rifles like AR pattern rifles, AK pattern rifles, and other rifles that are what I suspect most people think of when they hear "assault weapon".  At some point it was decided that "modern sporting rifle" was too euphemistic so someone decided to start putting a lot of that content into the AR-15 article.  That caused a problem since "AR-15" is a Colt owned trademark.  It would be like adding content about defective adhesive bandages made by random companies to the J&J Band-aid product page.  So somehow through all of this it was decided to make the AR-15 page specific to Colt brand rifles.  The modern sporting rifle page was changed to "AR-15 style rifles".  But that caused an issue since rifles that were conceptually similar to but not really based on the Colt AR-15 weren't welcome there.  Thus we don't have a home for content about the rifles often thought of as "assault weapons" or "modern sporting rifles".  So what about this article?  It was decided the scope of this article should be the legal definitions/usage of the term rather than the generic application of the term.  I think this was because, depending on the jurisdiction in question, the legal definition of an assault weapon can vary widely. Under the 1994 US federal law many guns that people would assume would be an "assault weapon" were not.  Conversely, under various state laws rifles and pistols that likely were not what the authors of the laws had in mind were covered because the feature based definitions aren't always precise.  Anyway, when you go back into the history of this article it was decided the scope should be the legal definitions rather than how the term is used outside of legal context since that becomes really murky.  I personally think we should have an article for "modern sporting rifles" but not with that name nor with the "assault weapon" name given that various legal definitions would cause quite the mess when deciding what should be in or out.  The reason why I think we should have such an article is because there is a public debate/concern relating to semi-auto rifles with intermediate caliber rounds, detachable magazines etc.  That is a category that would include semiauto ar-15 and AK pattern rifles as well as other rifles with similar function/purpose.  Journalists, not unreasonably, don't care if a semi-auto SIG MCX isn't an "AR-15" after it was used in a mass shooting.  The "modern sporting rifle" article used to be the place for that content but is no longer now that it's scoped to rifles based on the AR-15 pattern. I think sticking to the legal side of things makes sense here as it keeps the scope of this article clear.  Springee (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not following exactly, but think it would be good to have an article on "modern sporting rifles". It should be in the specific sense of the term (eg as defined by NSSF) not just about every rifle that is modern and used for sporting purposes. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a split discussion to be had at Talk:AR-15 style rifle. Others have had the idea before and there has been both support and opposition, see for example Talk:AR-15 style rifle/Archive 7. Personally, I'm ambivalent about the idea. I'm also not opposed to increasing coverage of assault weapons in general within this article. We just face scope challenges since basically any magazine-fed firearm has been classified as an AW at some point. VQuakr (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we are kind of hitting on the crux of the problem. There are several related topics and the question has always been, how to slice things up.  Ideally I would want several articles.  A "Colt AR-15" article could cover Colt's history with the rifle and their own offerings in this space.  This is significant because they were the original mfr of the civilian AR-15 rifles.  I also would like a general AR pattern rifle article (currently the "AR-15 style rifle" page) because I think the generic platform/rifle is a large enough topic that it should have it's own page and not all things AR-15 should be on the Colt page.  I think this page should stay strictly about the Assault Weapons laws/legislation/impact of laws etc.  It should discuss the range of definitions and the debates associated with both the details of these laws (what's in/out) and the debates related to these laws.  I could see renaming this page to something like "Assault Weapons legislation".  My feeling is that topic alone is a nice chunk and if you start adding discussions of "MSRs" into this page it will turn into a muddled mess.  Finally, I think a MSR page should exist but under a different name.  The problem is what to name it and how to scope it?  Calling it "Assault weapons (firearms, not laws)" is a problem because, like the laws, what goes in vs out of the bucket?  It would also likely cause a bunch of fights over scope etc.  "Modern Sporting Rifles" would be deemed euphemistic.  Even if I don't 100% personally agree, yeah, I 100% can see how a reasonable person would think that.  "Black scary rifle" is probably good in terms of identifying the class but it's also patronizing.  "Semi-auto, intermediate caliber, rifle with a detachable box magazine" is just a bit too many words.  At this point I normally give up and hope that someone else can come up with a simple article title. Springee (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO we need and assault rifle article, but is should clearly be about the mere variable-meaning term that it is. Other than as a term, it is not about a distinct topic and we should proceed accordingly.  It is in such common usage that we can't not cover it, and it would be useful to do so.  Just kike articles on the terms Gay agenda, Anchor baby, Political correctness, we should clearly recognize and cover it as (only) as a term. we're not covering a defined set of firearms. The we should noodle on the coverage of actual firearms as AR-15/ AR15 style rifles, Modern Sporting Rifle. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Having said "assault weapon" should be about the laws, I can see term + definitions based on laws etc. Springee (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand / agree with the general theme of your post (we should recognize that it isn't an actual type of firearm) But IMO there are issues with your idea. Trying to make it structural/legal is structurally pretty messy. For example, "Assault weapon" might be in the alternative sales title of the law, or used to promote the law but the law bans things that it doesn't specifically defines as assault weapons. For example, the defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban banned common pistols/ common pistol magazines without specifically defining them as "assault weapons".  Which leads to my second concern which is that the term is extensively used / misused  apart from any specific law item and so we should acknowledge that. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For example, the defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban banned common pistols/ common pistol magazines without specifically defining them as "assault weapons". This is not true. The text of the 1994 ban explicitly defined the term "semiautomatic assault weapon" to include certain pistols and shotguns . VQuakr (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info and correction. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the magazine ban. Basically the magazines in the pistols that police commonly carried were banned under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban law. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am going to try yet another reword. If we don't like it, we can always continue the chat here per WP:BRD. — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 23:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that your changes were good. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree; I think the status quo is better in every way actually. The proposed lead sentence failed miserably at defining the topic. VQuakr (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no distinct topic. It's just a vague variable meaning term.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Which wasn't defined in the proposed rewrite. In the United States, the term assault weapon is used to define firearms with specified characteristics says about the same thing as you just did. Unlike the proposed In the United States, the term assault weapon is a controversial term that is used differently by different groups which doesn't really say anything at all. VQuakr (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It says that it's a fluid ambiguous term used for various agendas. That says a lot, but admittedly with wording that needs improvement. Tidied up, IMO it would probably be the most informative sentence in the article. :-) <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why editors are so eager to change the lead sentence so it doesn't say anything, but, - the talk page is over here. Feel free to pursue consensus for your proposed changes. VQuakr (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Was trying just there to reword, but then you reverted before my new text could even be presented... would have preferred you waited even 5 minutes so that I could include the source and the new wording since you raised a valid point and I even mentioned your point in my edit summary that now was not able to be made because you reverted so fast . — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 22:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the phrasing you propose? VQuakr (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @VQuakr @Moops @North8000
 * Suggestion: "In the United States, assault weapon is a controversial term used to define firearms with specified characteristics." Riverbend21 (talk) 10:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * to me the addition of "controversial" doesn't really add value to the lead sentence. But it certainly is accurate and verifiable so if others feel that's an ideal sentence I won't die on that particular hill. Do you agree with the tweaks I made above? I changed from quotes to italics per MOS:REFERS. VQuakr (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see it as an improvement to the existing, not perfect, and when I have more time I'll try and reply to your comments about the two sources etc., but until then, I think the proposed modest change by  is reasonable. Do you want to insert it then, or should I? I personally have no issue with quotes or italics also. TY —  Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 18:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ VQuakr (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO the current first sentence is wrong/ incorrect and Moops's version is correct. It is a vague, variable, controversial term, and its main and common usage is in that way. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Existing first sentence: In the United States, the term assault weapon is used to define firearms with specified characteristics.. Can you clarify, precisely, what about this is "incorrect"? VQuakr (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought I did that. :-)  In essence, the main usage is what Moops said rather than the current first sentence. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't and still haven't. VQuakr (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think what was suggesting, if I understood them correctly, is that wording I put back said its a "term" in essence, but what does that term mean. I guess where I thought it was okay is that the next few lines (as I had proposed) get into that meaning as to what the term means to different groups. Its hard to write about, since one side pretty much doesn't use the term at all, or only in defense to arguments by the other that tries to use it, and the other side uses it, but uses it to mean different things in different situations and contexts. The term is not used simply to "define firearms with specified characteristics" since it is really not used by some at all, but it is used by others, so the term itself has propagandistic elements intrinsic to the term. That is what I think some editors appear to be trying to convey in the lead, and is supported by the now removed sources. —  Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 22:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What does the CNBC article say that the NYT article doesn't? They seem to have a lot of overlap to me. As a reminder, the lead summarizes the body so it isn't a good place to insert new sources. The term is precisely used to "define firearms with specified characteristics" in a legislative context; is that really a contentious fact for me to state? VQuakr (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a correct sentence for a "sometimes" use (and so fine with wording that says so and not as the first sentence in the lead), but not a correct sentence for it's main usage. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what you are trying to say. What in your view, is the "main usage" then? VQuakr (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For a good example on how to cover the term, see Gay agenda. The article identifies the term for what it is and it's main usage. It's doesn't start out with saying that it's a term to identify/ define certain objectives of gay activists. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There are massive differences between the terms, so much so that it's a very problematic topic to use as a model. There's never been "gay agenda" legislation under that name, and "assault weapon" was coined by the pro-gun folks before falling out of favor with them and into favor with gun control folks relatively recently. But even so, Gay agenda actually defines the freaking term in the first sentence of the article so you're not making the point you think you're making. VQuakr (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * While no model is analogous in every respect, I still think that it useful on the main points.  And while I think that you made a valid point on a difference, I think that it is in a secondary area and does not invalidate the validity of the model that I presented.   On your point that Gay agenda defines the term in the first sentence I would agree, but note that it may be different than you notice.  Because it defined it as an disparaging term used for the purpose of disparaging  something which has a different more legitimate name.  Putting a finer point on it, rather than simply "disparage" the main current usage of "Assault Weapon" is three things, both for political objective purposes:  1.  To assign the misuse term "assault" to what the trade association calls a Modern Sporting Rifle, the most common type of rifle owned the the USA.  2.  To give the impression that the are military firearms such as an actual military Assault rifle with full auto capability.  Probably #3 on the list in frequency of usage is the one that you promulgate in the lead sentence which is actual definitions in various laws or proposed laws.  But even there, it is arguably selected because it has no real definition and so who is making up a proposed law can invent whatever meaning they care to.  Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * did a pretty good job summing that part up, and since the substance of my suggested changed lead edits were moved by another editor lower into the body already, I think it would be appropriate at this point to change the lead back, or even let attempt a revised lead to include the fact that this term is far from settled science as a singularly defined and commonly or evenly used term. Those things, the term "Assault weapon", most definitively is not (neither singularly defined, nor commonly and evenly used). If the sources need to be added back down below also, then we can do that, if that is the prerequisite for the lead to change to reflect the reality of the term. —  Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 03:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't propose a rewording based on your verbiage because no part of the proposed wording is an improvement. The proposed phrase is a controversial term that has varying interpretations among different groups is a hopelessly useless phrase that is spectacularly devoid of any actual information and manages to fail every requirement of MOS:LEADSENTENCE. Meanwhile the existing first sentence covers all use cases of the term, from its birth as a promotional sales term to its adoption by the gun control side of things and subsequent shift in connotation. I asked before but you might have missed it: what information does the CNBC source contain that is missing from the NYT source? They seem to, at a high level at least, contain similar information. I have no objection to the CNBC source being added to the article as a source, but I don't see any benefit to adding it to the lead as there it seems like nothing but citation bloat. VQuakr (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions
This part needs a counterpoint, yet some editors don't seem to want to include an obvious counterpoint by including definitions found in the OED. As such the article is simply biased, reflecting poorly on the editors who wish to keep such obvious bias? Bob247 (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why don't you deal with the specific issue noted in the reversion instead of falsely inventing bad faith (the opposite of WP:AGF) about other editors? And edit warring the material in question back in? <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No bad faith here. The article states that the Encyclopædia Britannica describes that an assault rifle is capable of selective-fire. I only wish to include a counterpoint to such an assertion by including a dictionary definition (from a dictionary that is a secondary source for Wikipedia but primary among linguists) that states that one of the definitions of an assault rifle is that it is capable of semi-automatic fire only. Why the need (or want) to hide a counterpoint? I don't see why any unbiased person would want to hide a counterpoint. --Bob247 (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Per details it my previous post there clearly was an AGF issue there, and you doubled down on it in your next post by inventing false motive "to hide a counterpont". But I'm willing to move from that. But there is something mixed up in your post. The text in question is about "assault weapon" not "assault rifle" and so it makes no assertion at all about "assault rifle" and so does not disagree with / is not a "counterpoint to" to the statement that an assault rifle is capable  of selective fire. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No false motive on my part. Just introducing facts from a considered secondary source that refute the statements made within this biased article. Maybe reread again the parts you reverted. You obviously didn't understand. The definitions I gave were for both the assault rifle and assault weapon - the definitions that were there are not the only ones that exist. But I know that this is a losing argument as the general consensus seems to be just to have a bad article. Bob247 (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So you're tripling down with "the general consensus seems to be just to have a bad article". One other preface/correction, a dictionary is not a secondary source. But on the structure of the text both were about "assault weapon", including comparison to "assault rifle". <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The OED is a secondary source Dictionaries_as_sources and provides a definition that differs from those promulgated in this article, which counters the point being made in the paragraph. Bob247 (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an WP:ESSAY, and no it doesn't. VQuakr (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Dicdefs are of very limited utility; they are not technical resources and shouldn't be used as a counterpoint to a WP:RS. Personally I think we should lose the paragraph that begins "Dictionary definitions vary" altogether if it can't be sourced to reliable secondary sources. Doing our own polling of dictionaries seems WP:SYNTH-y. See also WP:EW, WP:AGF, WP:ONUS. VQuakr (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Doubly so for editor extraction of only a portion of the definition(s) given in a dictionary thus giving the impression that the dictionary gave it as the definition, thus making it appear that the dictionary said that there is a specific definition. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You see, THAT is bad faith considering I typed "part of the definition" and "definition 2b" which, to any nonbiased person would infer that there are multiple definitions. Bob247 (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm discussing the text and did not posit any editor motives as you did. The text in question did say "definition 2b" but did not say that it was only "part of the definition" as you assert in your post. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps take the effort to read what you revert before you revert it then - go look at the edit history and read what I wrote, then come back and tell me again how I did not use the phrase in the text that you reverted. And accusing people of misleading is the definition of positing editor motives. Again, bad faith. Bob247 (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I said that the text was misleading, unlike you I'm not positing editor motives. On the narrower simpler structural points (in essence that the text does not even attempt to define assault rifle as you purport that it does, and thus does not conflict with or provide a "counterpoint to" the given "assault rifle") you are not addressing those simple, narrow points so this isn't going anywhere. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, joining late here. What does this definition provide that is different than the other ones? Springee (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The first is the definition of assault weapon. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) has a definition (2b) that states an assault weapon is:
 * ''Any of various semi-automatic firearms based on or similar to military designs, typically capable of a high rate of fire, high muzzle velocity, and of accepting large-capacity magazines; esp. a civilian version of a military assault rifle
 * This is different to the definitions currently in place that infer that it is
 * any of various automatic and semiautomatic military firearms utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge, designed for individual use
 * Thus, according to the OED, the term assault weapon can be applied to civilian versions of semi-automatic firearms based on or similar to military designs. This was removed.


 * The second is the definition of assault rifle. The text currently sits as
 * according to the Encyclopædia Britannica, is that (assault rifle) is selective-fire, which means that it is capable of both semiautomatic and fully automatic fire
 * I put in text after that statement (that was promptly removed) that read:
 * while in the Oxford English Dictionary, part of the definition is that (an assault rifle) is a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle in some way; especially one whose design is based on a military assault rifle and has been manufactured primarily for the civilian market, typically having a longer barrel than its military equivalent and capable of semi-automatic fire only.
 * Thus, the term assault rifle can be applied to a rifle capable of only semi-automatic fire. Indeed, the term has been applied to the SKS as far back as 1975, and was used in an advertisement for the HK91 that appeared in Guns & Ammo in 1984. For some reason, the collective thought thus far is that the reader should not be privy to this information. Bob247 (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to tell which parts of your reply apply to assault rifle and which to assault weapon. Would you be willing to go back through and disambiguate? I also would like note that typical assault rifles do not have high muzzle velocity compared to other rifles. Which is an example of why a non-technical resource like a dictionary should be used with caution. VQuakr (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The OED text not only does not support your conclusion, it weighs in against your conclusion. The OED is speaking about "assault weapon" not assault rifle and it is making a comparison to / distinction from assault rifle. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what I saw as well, but thought maybe I was missing something. VQuakr (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * so you don't actually understand the text/English ... cool. Bob247 (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously, are you just trolling? If you're not here to discuss improvements to the article then don't participate. VQuakr (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Bob247, we appear to agree that an assault rifle is selective fire. An assault weapon as defined in the USA, is not selective fire because machine guns (any firearm capable of burst or automatic fire) are already heavily and separately regulated. Above where you say Thus, the term assault rifle can be applied to a rifle... is where you go off track by swapping the definitions from the OED. Right above that you say an assault rifle resembles an assault rifle which seems redundant and may indicate a point of confusion. VQuakr (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The term assault rifle can be applied to rifles that are selective fire. The term assault rifle can be applied to rifles that are semi-automatic only.


 * The term assault weapon can be applied to rifles that are selective fire. The term assault weapon can be applied to rifles that are semi-automatic only.


 * I did not swap the definitions in the dictionary, merely stated them.
 * Again, per the OED:
 * Assault rifle (def 2.): A rifle that resembles a military assault rifle in some way; esp. one whose design is based on a military assault rifle and has been manufactured primarily for the civilian market, typically having a longer barrel than its military equivalent and capable of semi-automatic fire only.
 * Assault weapon (def 2b): Any of various semi-automatic firearms based on or similar to military designs, typically capable of a high rate of fire, high muzzle velocity, and of accepting large-capacity magazines; esp. a civilian version of a military assault rifle 
 * To sum up the the change that I introduced - both terms can refer to semi-automatic only rifles as well as to selective fire rifles. --Bob247 (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, gotcha. OED includes the secondary, misnomer definition of assault rifle that's a synonym of assault weapon that's not something we need to include in the article, which is about assault weapon. both terms can refer to...selective fire rifles. you haven't supported this statement, which is incorrect. VQuakr (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So remove the section on assault rifles then. And I have actually supported the simple fact that the term assault weapon refers to selective fire rifles, but as that was already in the text, it didn't need to be added. Bob247 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So remove the section on assault rifles then. That doesn't follow at all. And I have actually supported the simple fact that the term assault weapon refers to selective fire rifles... Do you mean can refer, in the same way that "irregardless" can be used as a synonym of "regardless"? Kind of a moot point though since legally-owned selective fire rifles are so rare in the US. VQuakr (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Only a buffoon would use irregardless, in any context whatsoever. Selective fire rifles are so rare... only >600,000 currently legally registered by civilians in the USA, or about 2 per person. But I see the bias and pedantry so I will leave you with the piss poor article. Bob247 (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There are ~600k legal machine guns in the US (about 0.15% of all firearms in that country, which by many definitions is "rare"), some but not all of which are selective fire assault rifles. Roughly a third of those 600k, 176k to be precise, are owned by civilians registered with the ATF; most of the balance are owned by law enforcement organizations. 176k is about 0.0005 per person in the USA, which has a population of several hundred million not several hundred thousand. But sure, the issue here is my bias... VQuakr (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Only a buffoon would use irregardless, in any context whatsoever. Selective fire rifles are so rare... only >600,000 currently legally registered by civilians in the USA, or about 2 per person. But I see the bias and pedantry so I will leave you with the piss poor article. Bob247 (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There are ~600k legal machine guns in the US (about 0.15% of all firearms in that country, which by many definitions is "rare"), some but not all of which are selective fire assault rifles. Roughly a third of those 600k, 176k to be precise, are owned by civilians registered with the ATF; most of the balance are owned by law enforcement organizations. 176k is about 0.0005 per person in the USA, which has a population of several hundred million not several hundred thousand. But sure, the issue here is my bias... VQuakr (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

How do people feel about removing the rest of the dicdefs? VQuakr (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No strong opinion, but we're probably better off without them <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Huge swaths of this article should be binned. For example "Meanwhile, many gun rights activists.... " That whole paragraph is just the ramblings/musings of people with an agenda. Also, "The origin of the term has been attributed to legislators, the firearms industry, gun control groups, and the media." should just be cut. Remove the dicdefs as well and rely on actual facts, not musings from those with agendas. Bob247 (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Actual facts" isn't a useful phrase. Can you provide a PAG justification for eliminating opinionated sources from an article? Your suggestion seems to conflict with the guideline at WP:BIASEDSOURCES. VQuakr (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Stating that gun rights activists have put forward that the term originated from the media or gun control activists is irrelevant as to where and when the term was actually coined. We know that it was in use as far back as 1968 to describe a Chinese AK-47 Type 56 and was being used by gun shops to sell a semi-automatic version of the M16 in 1978. These are irrefutable facts. The musings of anyone on any side of the debate stating anything to the contrary without proof to back up their statement(s) is irrelevant. Bob247 (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe changing "originated" to "popularized" or "adopted" would be a better fix than removal. VQuakr (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Factually incorrect statements shouldn't be included, but if you must include them, preface with erroneously stated with no evidence or fabricated the allegation or similar. Bob247 (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well no, we're obviously not going to do that per WP:POINT and WP:NOTESSAY. "Originated" appears to be a WP original not in the sources provided so what exactly makes you say the underlying statements in the sources are "factually incorrect"? FYI discussing improvements to the article would be far easier if you'd lose the bluster. VQuakr (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you find confusing. Stating that the term (assault weapon) originated from the media or gun control activists is simply incorrect. The term has been in use in the English language for almost a century, and to describe rifles of the semi-automatic nature for almost 60 years. Bob247 (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What I find confusing is the part where you want to remove sources that don't appear to mention the term's origin. VQuakr (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Then why are they there?
 * Conservative writer Rich Lowry said that assault weapon is a "manufactured term" - either an ignorant statement or a blatant falsehood. Should be removed.
 * One of the key elements of the anti-gun strategy to gull the public into supporting bans on the so-called 'assault weapons' is to foster confusion. As stated previously, the public does not know the difference between a full automatic and a semi-automatic firearm. - no evidence put forth for such a statement. Should be removed.
 * the term 'assault weapon,' as used by the media, is a media invention. - since it has been in use by manufacturers and gun shops since the 1970's to sell both semi-automatic only and selective fire rifles, this is clearly false. Should be removed.
 * The origin of the term has been attributed to legislators, the firearms industry, gun control groups, and the media. - we don't actually know who coined the phrase, but what we can do is list what is actually known. That the term assault weapon was used to sell both semi-automatic only and selective fire rifles in the 1970s. Stick to verifiable facts, not assumptions. --Bob247 (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Rich Lowry - no, that's a viewpoint. We don't remove cited content due to your personal disagreement.
 * No evidence put forth - it's cited. Your WP:SYNTH on whether the source justifies it adequately is irrelevant.
 * Media invention - not, it's a viewpoint qualified by the phrase "as used by the media". We don't remove cited content due to your personal disagreement.
 * We agree "origin" was poor word choice; proposed fix here. VQuakr (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * so Wikipedia is now a collection of ignorant statements and opinions? Just because there is a citation, doesn't mean that the evidence is within the citation to support the ignorant opinion stated. Bob247 (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not what I said. I think we're done here since you appear to have no interest in engaging in good faith. VQuakr (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The same can be said with the bias and bad faith you have shown. Bob247 (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Since this is an article about a term I think that information about modern usage is very central/important to the article. As is where the bulk of the usage is.  Small usages of the terms from a long time ago  are neither, but should still be covered (in that context) because that are a part of the history of the term.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, IMO coverage about usage and promulgation of the term should be about the bulk of promulgation and usage, not small usages of the term a long time ago. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It mostly is, but I don't see any reason to not mention the origins, too. VQuakr (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, as I noted. I just meant that anything that relates to current usage and promulgation should not be confused by / derailed / conflated with small usages a long time ago. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Assault Weapon, Patrol Rifle, Tactical Rifle, Modern Sporting Rifle
They all mean "Semi-Automatic Variant of an Assault Rifle"

Phillip Peterson of Assault Weapons Buyers Guide of 2008 and Tactical Rifles Buyers Guide of 2010 claims that the Sugarman Article in 1988 was not, in fact, the first use of the term... does anyone know what the gun seller/FFL Phillip Peterson was referring to? Most definitely was add copy... but what is a usable source for something so... ephemeral

Also, when did the terms Patrol Rifle (most reference police changes in response to to los angeles bank robbery), Tactical Rifle, and Modern Sporting Rifle come into use?

PerkinsC (talk)PerkinsC PerkinsC (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

"Patrol rifle" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrol_rifle&redirect=no Patrol rifle] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Pichpich (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2024
Add the following to the section explaining the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: “The effects of the 1994 ban are speculative, despite the frequent references to the ban in political speeches and the media. A 1999 study conducted by the US Department of Justice concluded, “The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated”, suggesting that crackdowns on “hot spots” for gun crime and perpetrators of gun violence would be more effective. HPSigmaGuy (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. A DOJ study would be a good thing to cover/include.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This doesn't strike me as an uncontroversial edit, given both the tone, and the fact that the report is now 15 years old. There is likely more WP:DUE research to be covered at this point. PianoDan (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)