Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban/Archive 6

Suggestion: Restore crime bill source citation
The following got lost in the verts and reverts. The reference to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 should probably have a citation. Here is the URL: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3355enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3355enr.pdf Lightbreather (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: Restore BRD-generated balance, more NPOV lost in the rollback
In the current, rolled-back version of the article, the first paragraph of the Criteria section cites 6 sources (none pro-ban) using the word "cosmetic," and 0 (zero) sources saying that use of the word is controversial. Suggest restoring the pre-rollback version that is more balanced and NPOV. The same paragraph has 4 sources supporting use of the word "cosmetic," and 3 opposing it. --Lightbreather (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The term assault weapon, when used in the context of this law, refers primarily (but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms that possess certain cosmetic features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic.     Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', changes the classification from assault weapons to Title II weapons. The mere possession of cosmetic features was enough to warrant classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again. They do not fire automatically like a machine gun. Rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.
 * The term assault weapon, when used in the context of the federal assault weapons ban, refers primarily (but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms that possess certain cosmetic features   that are similar to those on fully automatic military assault rifles Some sources disagree that the features are cosmetic.    The possession of these features was enough to warrant classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again. They do not fire automatically like a machine gun. Rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull. Operational features, such as 'full-auto', changes the classification from assault weapons to Title II weapons.


 * I am not strictly opposed to this, but do note that the pro/con sources are not apples to apples. ALL of the "cosmetic" sources are WP:RS WP:SECONDARY sources. "not-cosmetic" 2/3 are WP:SPS WP:PRIMARY sources, valid only for stating their own opinion. The 3rd source is also a WP:PRIMARY (Interviews are always primary, even when published in reliable secondary sources) and has both cosmetic and non-cosmetic sources. So certainly the sources are enough to say "Some people disagree", but not enough to say that they are in fact not cosmetic. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The "cosmetic" sources are not all RS and SECONDARY. They are RS and PRIMARY. WP:PSTS (Note #3) says: Further examples of primary sources include ... editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews....


 * The Salon About page says it "covers breaking news, politics, culture, technology and entertainment through investigative reporting, fearless commentary and criticism, and provocative personal essays." The Seitz-Wald article - about the demise of AWB 2013 in the Senate - nine years after AWB 1994 expired - is more fearless commentary and personal essay than investigative reporting. Ditto for the Yager piece in The Hill, and the McArdle piece in The Daily Beast. The Kopel piece in the WSJ is an opinion piece.


 * Per WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. The Violence Policy Center, The International Assoc. of Chiefs of Police, and the National Rifle Association for that matter, fall under this exception.


 * So we have four RS and PRIMARY "cosmetic" sources published nine years after AWB 1994 expired, and three "not-cosmetic" sources concurrent with the expiration of the ban. Two are SPS but reliable, and one is an interview (possibly primary). None are primo sources, but they're acceptable and equally weighted considering their strengths and weaknesses. Lightbreather (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This might be simpler than it seems / you are not addressing/may have missed Gaijin's point. I think that Gaijin (and I agree) is essentially saying that that it is sufficient sourcing to include that that opinion has been expressed, not to support a statement that that that opinion is fact.  Also that those expressing the opinion are not sources, they are the people being covered by the sources. North8000 (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And the smartergunlaws.org source? And VPC's claims at different times that the features were cosmetic, or were not cosmetic? Cetainly not equally weighted - highly POV weighting. Anastrophe (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Guys, I'm writing as fast as I can. Please give me a few minutes. I replied to Gaijin, and I was writing a reply for Anastrophe next. Lightbreather (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not saying SPS cant be used, I am saying the opinions expressed in those SPS do not carry the same weight as opinions presented by neutral secondary sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Some sources disagree" is awkward. We generally don't refer to "sources" as such in body text. Also, VPC isn't a reliable source for this, unfortunately, unless you want to add them to the cites for both 'cosmetic features' and 'not cosmetic features'. We have a POV that is represented in a minority of sources being given inappropriate weight relative to the majority viewpoint. Why isn't the quote from Pro-control group smartergunlaws.org represented in the cites that are supportive that the features were cosmetic? We certainly can't just cherry-pick the sources, that's definitely not 'neutral' and 'balanced'. I absolutely cannot support this version if it excludes the smartergunlaws.org opinion, nor can I support it if VPC is offered as a reliable source only for the instance in which it suits one POV. Anastrophe (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It first read, "It is mostly opponents of the ban who refer to the listed features as cosmetic." Then it was changed to, "Some supporters of the ban disagree that the covered features are cosmetic." I agree that something brief but more specific like either of those is better than how it reads now. But, as I've said for the past couple of days, I do not plan on editing the article for a while. If other editors add this section, or a modified version, it's up to them [you] to decide what to include.


 * Also, if you want to include the VPC in both the "cosmetic" and "not-cosmetic" sources, okay with me, though I think it would be WP:BALANCE to remove one of the four other "cosmetic" sources. That would still leave four "cosmetic" and three "not-cosmetic." Or, alternatively, add the VPC to the "cosmetic" side and the LCPGV to the "not-cosmetic" side, as you've suggested. Then we'd have a 5:4 ratio. Why? Because many (myself included) disagree that the use of "cosmetic" is a majority viewpoint. How long this debate has been going on is evidence of that, and do we want to start a citation war and clutter up the article? If so - and gosh, I hope not - I will start collecting more, reliable sources that either A) explicitly oppose the word, or B) don't use it (because if a publication's editors believe the word is a critical part of the definition, they would be sure to include it consistently in their articles). However, I'd prefer to move on myself. Lightbreather (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "It first read". Really? You're going to use that particular unsourced personal opinion that was unaccompanied by *any* discussion or actual sources, jammed into the article purely to be disruptive, as the 'starting point', ignoring that it never had that POV spin before about a week ago? Interesting choice. Whether you agree or disagree that it is a majority viewpoint is immaterial. Sources on both sides of the debate have referred to the features as cosmetic. That's what it should say, rather than this oneupmanship in the number of sources. A small minority of sources have said that they were functional. I'd prefer to move on myself as well. "Organizations for and against the ban have referred to the features that were banned as being 'cosmetic', in support of their respective positions on the ban". Full stop. Anastrophe (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Earlier today, in response to my suggestion above, in this section, you wrote, "'Some sources disagree' is awkward." We were discussing the version of a few days ago and it was *not* personal opinion and it *was* sourced, as anyone who follows my links three paragraphs up will see. I am offended by the charge that the material I added was done so without any discussion and "jammed into the article purely to be disruptive." We had been discussing it, and it was added as part of a process we'd agreed to. (Unfortunately, the discussion and process were interrupted by the rollback.) Would you please apologize and reword or strike the offensive language?
 * "Sources on both sides of the debate have referred to the features as cosmetic." Yes, but sources on both sides have used the term "cosmetic" in reference to the ban itself, the term assault weapon, or to qualify all or some of the features. The usage has been inconsistent and there have been reliable sources who disagree with use of the term at all. I do not want "oneupsmanship" in the number of sources, and I do not want to change the subject to who uses the word "functional." (If you want to, please start a new section.)
 * I have presented my editorial arguments for adding this material. In my opinion, as an experienced editor, it would make the article more - to use the Wikipedia term - NPOV. Again: I do not plan on editing the article for a while. If other editors add this suggested material, or a modified version, it's up to them to decide what to include. Lightbreather (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No apology is necessary. Please reread my comment in context. I was referring to editor saltyboatr, who wrote the absurdely POV sentence you chose as an artificial 'starting point'. A minority of pro-control sources have said the features were functional. The majority of sources on both the pro-rights and pro-control side have referred to the features as cosmetic in support of their respective opinion on the ban and it's effectiveness or lack thereof. It's time to drop the stick, stop arguing that giving WP:UNDUE weight to a minority POV that isn't even shared uniformely by the pro-control faction makes the article somehow NPOV. I know, I know - you disagree that it's a minority opinion. Personal opinion noted. The sources, which are all that matter, disagree. Think about it. The pro-control side argues that the FAWB was ineffective because it banned cosmetic features - which is why they want a tougher ban. The end-game of the pro-control faction is to ban civilian ownership of firearms (see 'Sugarmann' if you need further elucidation). If an editor is in the pro-control faction, I'd think they'd support the argument that the FAWB was ineffective for the reasons supported by the pro-control side, because it's the argument necessary to lobby for a 'tougher' bill. Speaking hypothetically, of course. Anastrophe (talk)

It was I who wrote "It is mostly opponents of the ban who refer to the listed features as cosmetic.", not Salty. We were in the middle of discussing and developing it, so to say it was not discussed and that it was jammed into the article to be disruptive is offensive. Please reword or strike. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, you are mistaken. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=574751043&oldid=574749765. You merely ran with the ball after the fumble.Anastrophe (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So Salty wrote, "Opponents of the law have commonly used the term 'cosmetic' to describe these features". That's the edit you were referring to when you wrote, "You're going to use that particular unsourced personal opinion that was unaccompanied by *any* discussion or actual sources, jammed into the article purely to be disruptive...." Then you went on to say that I chose his "absurdly POV sentence as a 'starting point'" - which I had not done, as my comments and links show.
 * What I wrote, citing three sources, was, "It is mostly opponents of the ban who refer to the listed features as cosmetic," and I chose that as a starting point. If you won't apologize, OK, but I don't want someone to come along later and think I am suggesting or supporting Salty's edit - because I am not. Lightbreather (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless your edit was also inappropriate, because none of the citations you included come anywhere close to saying anything about what language is used in general by opponents or supporters, but only the language used by those particular participants. per WP:RS/AC, we cannot make such judgments on our own.Gaijin42 (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Then the sentence was changed to, "Some supporters of the ban disagree that the covered features are cosmetic." Then it was changed to "Some sources disagree," which Anastrophe said was awkward (and I agree). That's the only reason I brought up two previous versions. Lightbreather (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The two sentences are cosmetically identical. I mistook one for the other, since they say the same thing only with slightly different wording, and they're both overtly POV, regardless of the sources you added. However, you didn't write the former, so I apologize for mistaking who wrote which version of the same sentence a few hours apart. Anastrophe (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * One (Salty's) has "cosmetics" in quotations, which could be interpreted as scare quotes. Mine did not, and it said "mostly opponents," and it was sourced. At any rate, as part of the BRD process, it was soon changed, and eventually became "Some sources disagree," which - I agree with you - is awkward. Thanks, sincerely, for the apology. With my every edit being watched by several (if not many) editors, I don't want statements floating around that negatively reflect on my abilities or my efforts. Lightbreather (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Citations are not subject to WP:BALANCE they are they way you determine what that balance should be. Giving each POV one sentence, when cosmetic has (at least) 6 cites available, all from 3rd party sources and non-cosmetic has 3 (2 of which are SPS) is WP:UNDUE. Attempting to artificially limit the citations under the guise of balance is in fact the exact opposite of what those policies asks for. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Since it is agreed that I am no longer a newbie WP editor, I will say simply that I disagree. If anyone wants to push the cosmetic-majority stance with WP:CITEKILL then I suggest that you please do include at least the brief, sourced addition suggested - and put the "majority" (disagree) citations in WP:CITEBUNDLE. Lightbreather (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Saying we can reduce the number of citations due to WP:CITEKILL is very different than must due to WP:BALANCE. Further, the overkill was only neccesitated because some editors repeatedly insisted that cosmetic was not well sourced/accurate. How things are cited is of course a completely different issue than what text should be included, and how much weight we should give each viewpoint in that text. (Which is a decision to be made based on the sources available, not the sources actually used.) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

One big problem is that it refers to advocacy organizations as "sources". Also has the cherry-picking problems that Anastrophe noted, and I would add to the cherry picking that excludes anti-firearm people who have also used the term "cosmetic". But I think that some coverage of the "not cosmetic" assertion is a good thing. North8000 (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I would remind everyone AGAIN that a consensus has already been reached on the use of the word "Cosmetic", and perhaps it would be more constructive to move on to other issues. Repeatedly resurrecting this issue is disruptive. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Lede
I made a slight grammatical correction in the lede. I hope everyone is ok with it. I came short of writing the entire sentence I originally thought, however: "There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, so far none have succeeded to date." I thought that might be of a more controversial nature, and so I'm placing it here for discussion. It seems better written and unbiased in my eyes, but there are probably subtleties that I am missing when viewed from the other side of the fence, as it were. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If there are no objections after a few days, I'll go ahead and make the change. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure what you think is controversial. It seems like a straight forward statement of fact. I do note that "so far" is redundant with "to date". Gaijin42 (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I didn't think any of it was controversial. I was just making sure everyone else felt the same way. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

ATF study resource
While I was working on the Gunsmith article I ran across this study by the Treasury department from April of 1998. Department of the Treasury Study on the Suitability of Modified Semiautomatic Sporting Rifles I haven't read through the whole thing yet, but the Executive Summary was interesting as it lists the 'eight physical features' that make a rifle "non-sporting", page 1. Later on it does go on to define a "military assault rifle". I hope this helps in some way. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and it is interesting reading. I'm thinking that it doesn't relate heavily to this article which is about a particular law.  The core of it is about placing a "sporting" standard on imports and using the common meanings of the time. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think he was pointing out the parallels between how the features were described in that document, and how they are described in the law, as a point of in the cosmetic discussion. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Precisely G... :) I'm curious if there's any interest in a follow-up study. Practical shooting matches are very popular now as opposed to when the study was done. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no study that I am aware of, but the ATF is still not counting practical sports as sporting. (Mainly affecting Glock at this point who cant import several of their guns because they dont get enough sporting points) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Makes sense, they have no other information to the contrary. Isn't the US government notorious for using outdated info? I remember an issue a while back with voting district laws and part of the problem being that data going back to the 60's or 70's was being used. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

There are several compounded complexities. An old law with an old criteria that applies in a narrower area (imports). Plus "not needed for sporting" criteria ignores other uses (defense etc.) and even excludes many sporting uses (e.g.practical shooting matches) that are much more prevalent now. North8000 (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Time to resume process normalcy
Without going back into details, I think we emerging from a period where a flurry of stuff killed the normal process, which we should resume. Talking vaguely in the key areas, I think that the normal process is simply making non-controversial edits a few at a time routinely, and having discussions on specific items / proposed changes (not bundles of such) where they might be controversial. North8000 (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A good rule of thumb is that if you think an edit might be controversial, discuss it first. Now that the article is stable again, it might eventually have the makings of a GA. (Just my opinion) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And, in view of what has happened here, no avalanches or giant bundles. North8000 (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

quote for cosmetic from VPC
Not sure if this quote is already used somewhere or known, just stumbled across it looking for a sunset photo.

"Nothing of substance will change in the gun industry after the sunset," said Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit organization that advocates gun control. "The difference between the post-ban versions of assault weapons such as the AR-15 and their banned counterparts is entirely trivia." She added that many assault weapons had been developed since 1994 and fall outside the ban's restrictions." http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0910-21.htm

Again saying only trivial differences between pre and post ban, but then by definition the ban is affecting trivial features. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42 (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

source
This source itself is maybe useful as an academic publication, which wiki says holds more weight than news, but as it is written by a law student may not be reliable-enough. In any case, it has copious footnotes, which might lead to more reliable sources for various purposes. http://www.nyujlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Clark-Wohlferd-Much-Ado.pdf Gaijin42 (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Its an interesting read and clearly well researched and a good source of references, but its not without contentious comments. For example on page 7, "The AWB did prohibit large capacity clips, and in that sense did reduce the firing rate of guns. However, the delay in firing caused by smaller ammunition clips is marginal due to the split second it takes for the shooter to press the release button and lock in a “new fully-loaded clip.” (emphasis added) is somewhat misleading. Any shooter, military professional or not - practiced or not, knows that it take several sections to change magazines.
 * Although the "Reducing Crime" section on page 11 seems to pose some interesting hypothesis. Either way, there are some fascinating observations made in the paper. I'm very curious about reading some of the reference material. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed second quote from VPC under Compliance
It's from a press release, it says essentially the same thing as the quote preceding it. It gives undue weight to the pro-control side, seemingly suggesting that because a law was poorly written, it was "wrong" for firearm manufacturers to comply with said law. Definitely WP:UNDUE. Anastrophe (talk) 05:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Press releases make poor citations. I don't agree that it gave undue weight to the pro-control side, but I think it's removal improves the article anyway. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed Memoli ref from criteria
The reference is to http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/19/news/la-pn-assault-weapons-ban-likely-dropped-20130319, which is entirely about the 2013 proposed AWB, not the 1994 AWB. Not reliable for the latter. Anastrophe (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Replaced with valid reference to 1994 AWB from smartgunlaws.org pro-control site, for balance. Anastrophe (talk) 05:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

As my last three edits affect POV balance, I'm stopping here to provide an opportunity for discussion, reversion, aversion, inversion, perversion, obversion, contempt, applause, disdain, plaudits, ennui, kudos, schadenfreude, pedestrian ratiocination, or even an (expected) ghostly silence of disinterest. Anastrophe (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No silence for you! Gaijin42 (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I was going to comment about your second edit, but then you fixed it with the third edit, cancelling out my objection. It's a wash. No complaint here.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Sugarmann quote
The following quote (with bolloxed edit kruft retained) has been hidden in the editable article for quite a while. I've removed it and am posting here. Sugarmann's own words are quite damning to the pro-control argument - that they're willing to prey upon and foster people's ignorance about weapons to propagandize their cause. For that reason, I don't think it's appropriate to the article, but apparently someone in the past did. It should either be discussed or tossed, but what it shouldn't be is left in the article as a hidden fragment. Here it is (I've posted it verbatim, neutralizing the hiding tags)-

BEGIN

<!!-- This section is linked from [[Feder -->

<!!-- How this opinion helps define the current or functional legal term of AWB?: The term "assault weapon", as used in the context of civilian rifles, has been attributed to gun-control activist Josh Sugarmann, author of the 1988 book "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America" who wrote:

Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine Bold textguns should be aloudweapons.--> END


 * What a mess, I never noticed it. If you want to hear opinion from someone who is pro-control, I actually have no problem with the quote as long as it is properly cited and verifiably true. My concern is more along WP:BLP lines. I would want to know that he actually wrote that. I also don't think it's particularly damning to any side of the issue, as Josh Sugarmann is on the pro-control side himself. It does speak to the cosmetic issue, however, and I think that is important, so I am neutral on having it in the article. It should certainly not be re-introduced into the article unless it's fixed. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I found the complete quote on the Josh_Sugarmann article, in better context, and cited well. I don't see any reason that it cannot be in this article as well, unless there is a redundancy concern. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * My feeling is that at best, it would be appropriate to an 'origins' or 'history' section - which was in the early stages of development when the Big Reversion occurred. Outside of that - It predates the ban by six years, so I don't think it's specific enough to the ban itself to be probative.. Anastrophe (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Title should be lowercase per WP:TITLE, WP:LOWERCASE and WP:NCCAPS
The title of this article is contrary to the WP:TITLE policy under WP:LOWERCASE, which says the words in article titles should not be capitalized unless they would be in running text. Per the WP:NCCAPS guideline, ignoring this standard reflects poorly on Wikipedia's credibility. Of the 30+ sources cited in the article none capitalizes "federal assault weapons ban" in running text, though two use "Assault Weapons Ban of 1994."



In addition to the current sources, here are 10 other examples - both pro-gun and gun-control - that do not use "federal assault weapons ban" in caps in running text.


 * Associated Press
 * Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
 * Senator Dianne Feinstein's official website
 * Fox News
 * Los Angeles Times
 * NRA Institute for Legislative Action
 * The New York Times
 * U.S. Government Printing Office
 * USA Today
 * The Wall Street Journal

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There are available arguments in both directions. For example, if it is a RW title, wp:title says it should be capitalized. What I am baffled by is why this is such a big deal. North8000 (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What is an RW title? (I have a guess, but don't want to assume.) Lightbreather (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC) OK. I went back through the discussion started on this back in August. You (North) said that if we took up the question again, we should start by learning whether the title exists as a title in the real world. I have looked through the original law and the proposed bills that would have renewed or reauthorized the ban. The official, short title for the LAW (AWB 1994) was "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act." (The terms "assault weapons ban" and "federal assault weapons ban" do not appear in the law.) The BILL short titles were "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003," "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2005," "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007," and "Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008." Lightbreather (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * On why it's a big deal, maybe this would help. Think about how laypeople interchange the terms "clip" and "magazine." And when they're talking to other laypeople, that's probably no big deal. They just mean a thing that holds bullets. But to some, that distinction is important and to interchange them indicates a certain level of ignorance on the part of the speaker. With good writers and editors, capitalizing when you should not (or not capitalizing when you should) are the same as comparing interchanging clips and magazines. Lightbreather (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Lightbreather, please step away from the dead horse and lay the stick down on the ground. You have already brought this up multiple times. It has been discussed round and round. You have even taken this issue to two other notice boards. There is no consensus to change the title. PLEASE STOP. Continuing to re-introduce this topic is disruptive. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It was last discussed on this page nearly two months ago, and closed mid-discussion. After that, I posted it on one notice board (though it was briefly mentioned in a separate notice). After searching, I finally found the WP essay that best describes my experience since I first started contributing to this article in August: POV railroading. "The process of POV railroading includes (1) isolating the opponent, (2) intimidating and confusing the opponent, (3) frustrating and baiting the opponent, and (4) creating a narrative that the opponent is violating policy, (5) regardless of actual behavior." That's why I reached out to you for help.


 * Since you weren't active here before I asked for help, would you at least stand back and see how the guys handle my return? I don't think a half-dozen more-experienced editors are defenseless against me. Lightbreather (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean how the other editors are going to handle the numerous accusations integrated into your last post? North8000 (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:CRUSH, and I am growing very very tired of it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, North. My reply was to Sue. I posted "please stop" statements to her talk page on Sept. 1, Sept. 6, and Sept. 17. She moved the last two all three back to my talk page and asked me to not post to her talk page anymore.
 * Did you notice that I did respond to your comments on the subject of this section? I'd really appreciate the opportunity to get back on topic. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Although Sue's initial comment was correct, it was also needlessly rude and anger baiting.  Konveyor   Belt  01:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I was attempting to express my frustration (and hopefully the frustration of other editors here) with a troublesome editor that picks up exactly where she left off after narrowly escaping a topic ban for this exact behavior. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

effect on crime 45%
The 45% number is directly from the source, so that is in its favor, but it is a self published, biased source, which argues against it. Further, the actual study to which the brady group refers, was commissioned BY the brady group, and is The 45% is not a mathematical error, although there is certainly a (possible) logic error on the part of the brady group. 3.1% is indeed 45% ((5.7-3.1)/5.7 = 45) but this actually tells you nothing about the effect of the law on criminal use. If the assault weapon use amount stayed exactly the same, but handgun use increased, this number could also be true. Also any systematic changes in the way the ATF performed or selected investigations could have the same effect. That the raw numbers used to generate these % is not in the brady publication is perhaps a sign of this type of issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Besides the numbers game of making a 1.5% change look like 45% there is even a more fundamental problem. That's like saying that "since we outlawed Prius automobiles, there have been fewer accidents involving Prius automobiles." It says nothing while appearing to say something. North8000 (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks guys I see it now. The first thing I did was open my calculator and I couldn't make the numbers work. I'm a bit of a fan of the Brady Center, so I think I'll just stay neutral on this one. LOL --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The study was prepared by the Brady Center using ATF records available to the public and analyzed by Crime Gun Solutions. The chief CGS analyst was Gerald Nunziato, who was special agent in charge of the ATF’s National Tracing Center for eight years. A math error (which is not demonstrated here) is easy to prove; a logic error is harder. This study looked at assault weapons named in the ban and "copycats" made to get around the ban. As a percentage of crime-guns traced, there was a decrease. A decrease of 2.6 points (from 5.7% to 3.1%) is significant when looking at 1.4 million crime-gun traces. I think Cartermassey's addition to the article should be restored. Lightbreather (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Bullshit, crime traces have less to do with murder and more to do with theft and possession violations.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is no math error, but the percentage values are worthless to establish the effectiveness or not of the legislation. There are many many different scenarios which are consistent with these numbers, including a LARGER amount of assault weapon traces combined with an even larger amount of handgun traces. which would be completely counter to the implications from Brady. They easily could have provided the raw numbers, but did not. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Background section
I am proposing the following Background section for the beginning of the article. I chose "Background" as the section title based on the first section in the National Firearms Act article. Lightbreather (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I will expand the "opposed" content tomorrow, so if you have any suggestions... Lightbreather (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Background (proposed)
The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act - commonly called the "assault weapons ban," the "federal assault weapons ban," and the "AWB" - was part (Title XI, Subtitle A) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 - also called the "crime bill."

In January 1989, 34 children and a teacher were shot in Stockton, Calif., using a semi-automatic replica of an AK-47 assault rifle. Five of the children died. Two months later, President George H.W. Bush banned the import of semiautomatic rifles pending a review of their use. Lawmen said they were often outgunned, and doctors and nurses in big cities reported increases in deaths and injuries from semiautomatic weapons. In May 1989, California became the first state in U.S. to ban the sale of assault weapons. In July, the Bush administration declared the the temporary import ban to be permanent on 43 of the 50 models reviewed. The year 1989 also marked the beginning of efforts to create a federal assault weapons ban.

In November 1993, the ban passed the U.S. Senate, although its author, Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, and other advocates said that it was a weakened version of the original proposal. In May 1994, former presidents Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, wrote to the U.S. House of Representatives in support of banning "semi-automatic assault guns." They cited a 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll that found 77 percent of Americans supported a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of such weapons. Rep. Jack Brooks, D-TX, then chair of the House Judiciary Committee, tried to remove the ban from the crime bill but failed.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) opposed of the ban. In November 1993, NRA spokesman Bill McIntyre said that semi-automatic weapons were used in only 1 percent of crimes, but 2 million times a year by citizens for self defense.

In January 1994, Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, said handguns and assault weapons should be banned. Later, the VPC supported replacing the ban with a tougher law, saying that the firearms industry had evaded the ban and that simply renewing it would not address the danger assault weapons pose to public safety.

--Lightbreather (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like cherrypicked history, not about the topic, and selected to support the ban.   The one exception is is the short NRA item, and it as a significant error it it.  The sources was correct but the text is the above is not) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the error? I don't see what you're talking about. The McIntyre/NRA source URL is http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-11-18/news/9311180157_1_brady-bill-ban-assault-weapons-violent-crime and the quotes are:
 * "These weapons are used in only 1 percent of all crimes," McIntyre said. "All this legislation will do is keep these weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens."
 * McIntyre contended that most owners of semiautomatic weapons use them for purposes of "self defense. About 2 million times a year they are used by citizens to protect themselves."
 * Also, the article currently has nothing about the discussions ongoing in the U.S. at the time the ban was written, or who it was written by. Adding a brief section on that background info puts the law in context. As I said yesterday, I am still looking for "opposed" positions written in larger metro newspapers at the time (or equally reliable, authoritative sources of verifiable accuracy), if you'd like to suggest some. Lightbreather (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The error is saying that the 1% is for semi-automatic. The article did not say that and it is implausible, given that semi-automatic is an immensely common everyday feature (maybe 1/2 of all firearms). North8000 (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since we have some feedback and a new source from StarryGrandma, I am going to pull the draft of this section back into my user space and work on it for a while. I would like to include the "opposed" material from this source, but since I can't seem to paraphrase it correctly, would you take a go at it? The source is a Nov. 1993 story in the Chicago Tribune and its link is: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-11-18/news/9311180157_1_brady-bill-ban-assault-weapons-violent-crime. I've given the quotes from McIntyre above. Or if you have another source, that would be great. If you can't help, I'll keep trying. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that the whole idea is a bad idea.  Wikipedia editors selecting what they think is relevant to the history would be a recipe for turning this relatively straightforward article on a law into a dramafest debate, and about a section that is not even about the law.  And I think that Lightbreater's selection has a POV tilt. North8000 (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, this looks like more of the same old stuff per WP:CRUSH --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Peer review again?
I see that lightbreather has brought the article up for a peer review, which is a good idea, but isn't the article ALREADY being/been peer reviewed? Read: Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban/Archive_5 Thanks. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Answers (from me and Drmies) are in the review request. Lightbreather (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

We now have an updated and formal peer review, stating "I don't see that the article overall has problems with point of view." Hopefully, this will put some of that particular issue to rest, and we can stop dredging up old issues, and focus on some of the excellent suggestions made by the reviewer. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Since I had already started on a origins/background section, I am going to go back and work on it using the sources I'd found, plus the excellent one StarryGrandma provided (the ncjrs.gov PDF of the March 1999 NIJ Research in Brief). Thanks again a million times, StarryG! Lightbreather (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: peer review as it relates to lead
There are at least two observations in the recent peer review that are relevant to the lead.


 * "I don't see that the article overall has problems with point of view. [1] The positioning of some information may be awkward and lead to undue emphasis on it.... Like many articles on laws this one need more organization and needs more information about the provisions of the law....
 * "[2] The lead paragraph needs to mention that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban did not ban owning assault weapons in the United States. Not all readers will be familiar with US policies on gun control."
 * "[2] The lead paragraph needs to mention that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban did not ban owning assault weapons in the United States. Not all readers will be familiar with US policies on gun control."

Based on these and on the WP:LEAD guidelines, I am going to reorganize the lead and add more information. Please give me some time. Lightbreather (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, if you make changes that are controversial without discussing them here first, you will probably be facing another round at ANI. You are picking up exactly where you left off, and that is *NOT* ok. Please read WP:CRUSH. Single-purpose POV accounts are frowned upon on Wikipedia, your actions are going well beyond WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and are well into WP:DISRUPT. If you don't like hearing this, I am sorry, ask your mentor. She will tell you the same thing. STOP THIS NOW. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A quick perusal of this and other talk pages shows that Lightbreather's comments and edits are not without controversy, to put it mildly, and that's not to anyone's benefit. I don't know what the evidence is for edit warring, for instance, and I don't wish to look for it right now, but that's a blockable offense as well, of course--WP:ANEW is the appropriate venue. But given the SPI SPA [correction] charge it may well be that a topic ban is to be requested. Lightbreather, I don't say this lightly and by saying it I am not saying there's truth to the accusations, but it seems to me that that is where this is headed. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Drmies I also find her actions disruptive, although I think the vandalism charge from the previous section is a bit overly-strong. Regarding SPI, I don't see anyone making such a charge, although an SPA is often correlated with an SPI, nobody has made that accusation (unless I am missing it). I think the main problem is her repeated headstrong attititude of "Im going to charge in here and right the wrongs" rather than starting smaller and proposing smaller level changes - to that end, I think the previous section's actions were appropriate, although it is clear that there is consensus against the change - but that seems like a normal resolution of BRD. In this section rather than saying "Im going to fix it" I think a more surgical "What do you think of this specific change to this specific sentence" methodology would be appropriate, in light of the previous discussions regarding that editor's MO. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gaijin. You have explained things for me in the past, so could you tell me: I know what SPA is, but what is SPI? Also, is there a way to stop one editor who is bullying another? Maybe like a WP version of a restraining order? I mean, if an editor is attacking and you (impersonal) post "please stop" requests on that editor's talk page, and then that editor moves the requests back to your own talk page - how can you effectively address that behavior? I have made many good edits here, neutral and "POV" for both sides, but to read the discussions, one might think (mistakenly) that my edits are only extremely pro-control (which they aren't). Lightbreather (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, just to be clear, I never said I was going to "fix" the lead. I said I was going to reorganize it based on two peer-review comments that apply. Normally, that wouldn't need to be corrected, but it's an important distinction right now because my edits are under scrutiny. Lightbreather (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I will explain some of the policies to you, but be very wary of WP:BOOMERANG as i think most of the complaints you would be able to make would end poorly for you. WP:SPA is a single purpose account, one that edits exclusively (or mostly) on one subject. That pretty obviously applies to you. SPI means WP:SOCK where the investigation into socking is WP:SPI. SPA's are often Socks, but I don't believe anyone is accusing you of this at this time. (Either Drmies was mistaken, or accidentally typed SPI instead of SPA) Regarding restraining order, there is WP:IBAN, but that would probably restrict you just as much as the hypothetical other, and as there is generally consensus against most of your changes here, I don't see that it would really help you much. The moving of comments skirts WP:TPO, and WP:CIVIL which if the violations are egregious enough could result in blocking, but I don't know enough about the particular circumstance to say what I think would happen. (Again, beware the boomerang). There is also WP:NOBAN which would apply to your specific talk page request, but generally does not apply to posting of warnings or notices. I do not know what type of posts you were objecting to, so can't really comment as to if they would fall into the exceptions or not. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, Gaijin. As I've said before, I am not an SPA, and I'm not an SPI either. I understand about the boomerang thing, too. All of these accusations (and I don't mean you) are literally making me sick. I'm actually crying right now, because I am a very good, trained editor, and I feel my name on Wikipedia is cruelly and unnecessarily sullied (and again, I don't mean by you), and I don't know that I can ever recover my reputation here. I graduated cum laude with a degree in journalism from my university, and editing was my best subject. Again, I feel like the only options I'm offered by (most of) the editors on this page is stop editing (unless it's something gnome-like - the URLs I corrected, the citations I standardized, spelling and grammar errors I fixed) or get banned or blocked. I mean, if you (impersonal) step back and think about it and look at the article, it actually looks more professional and is more NPOV since I joined the team in August. But what power do I have? I made a mistake then, and I've been on the defense ever since. If I were writing this article in a vacuum, that might affect its neutrality - but I'm not writing in a vacuum. And in reality, based on my training, I write and edit for my audience - which here on WP is an encyclopedia reader.
 * Assuming I'm pro-control, that makes one of me and more than six pro-gun editors. I have very little power, but my contributions have demonstrably improved the article and rounded the discussions. I'm crying again. I'm going to go eat lunch. Lightbreather (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * On a personal note, if it is really causing you upset, you should step away. Wikipedia is not worth mental health. I think you are feeling on the defensive, and therefore failing to see what the suggestions we are making are. I understand being defensive,m but if you want the situation to change, you need to re-assess. Cant you see how " I am going to reorganize the lead and add more information" can be read in light of your previous interactions? Every statement you make comes across as confrontational. I understand being on the defensive, but you are not going to get anywhere without changing the attitude and impression of your actions. Stop doing "This is wrong, this is better". and more "What do you guys think about X, I found this, and maybe it would be better?". Look at the way some of the other talk page sections start. For example Sue's suggestion of photos, or the sugarman quote, or many of the sections throughout the archives. Even when we (the other editors) think everyone is going to agree with what we say, it still is coming across as "I had this idea, what do you think" not "Clearly we are not in compliance with guidelines X, Y and Z. I will fix it. If you object, or even agree but tweak, you are uncivil and pov". (exaggerated yes, but that is the impression I get from many of your comments). Being a journalism editor is a great background, but "editing" a solo article is a lot different than collaborating, particularly a collaboration on a controversial subject, where there are a labyrinth of policies and guidelines and precedent around controlling how that collaboration goes. For the record, I think the reaction to your previous section was an overreaction, but I agree with the end result (I agree with anastrophe's wording. The common wording used is ban, not restriction). Gaijin42 (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I find their problematic areas to be a much longer list than that. And, aside from the gnome portion of theri work before, everything seem to relentlessly follow a POV-direction pattern. It's not my dance to seek getting people smacked, but I think it would be good for them to give this topic a rest and move to their selection of the other 4 million+ articles not related to this for a while while while Lightbreather takes that breather. :-) . North8000 (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The only "wrong" that I see that has been inflicted on Lightbearer is Anastrophe's referring to some breaking of wikilinks as "intentional" in an edit summary somewhere. Anastrophe, please don't impugn intent like that again. For the rest, I don't know, I'm not monitoring the content. North says these edits are POV; well, it's possible that they are. North is utterly wrong politically, but neutral enough as an editor and I trust their judgment. It's the kind of thing that perhaps needs to be brought up formally if this continues. BTW, I don't buy the whole "Wikipedia is a complete labyrinth" thing (with apologies for the SPA/SPI typo, and thank you Gaijin for linking it--I though it was already linked here). No, it's real simple. Edits are to be neutral in tone and based on secondary or tertiary sources. That's really it; the rest is partly common sense, partly editorial judgment, and agreed upon by consensus. Now, if any consensus is determined by a bunch of AK-47 toting idiots who are determined to turn Wikipedia into their don't-tread-on-me platform, we'd have a problem--but that's not the case. And yes, there's lots of other articles to edit. Too much investment is, encyclopedically speaking, not always a good thing. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This edit of my comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALightbreather&diff=579053064&oldid=579043955 had the appearance of being done specifically to break the wikilinks, since those were the only changes done to it. Apparently that wasn't the intent. Normally it is not necessary to edit another editor's comments to add one's own. I shouldn't have ascribed intent without proof. Anastrophe (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Just sharing something
As another of my good-faith efforts to help improve this article devolves into another protracted discussion about my behaviors and intentions rather than about content, I would like to share an article my husband (an IT Manager, FWIW; I used to be a computer programmer/analyst before I went back to school to study journalism) shared with me recently. I know this isn't a new subject to you - who all have years, as opposed to my months - of active editing experience here on Wikipedia - but I found it fascinating, and it really validated my experience here, and my opinion about my experience, when I felt like giving up.

The Decline of Wikipedia, by Tom Simonite, Oct. 22, 2013.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I am totally confused by all this fuss!
I'm very confused by what's happening in the history of this page.

For example today the lead paragraph was:

The expired Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms. The ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. The ban expired on September 13, 2004, per its sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, none have succeeded to date.

It became:

The expired Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The United States law restricted the manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines). The ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. It only applied to weapons and magazines manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. The ban expired on September 13, 2004, per its sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, none have succeeded to date.

It was changed back with the reason: The ban did not prohibit possession. Yet section 110102 of the law states that "(a) RESTRICTION.--Section 922 of Title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: (v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semi-automatic assault weapon." Then follows a list of exemptions, including of already manufactured weapons, and a provision that the serial number show date of manufacture so one could tell which weapons this applied to.

Can someone tell me what is going on here? Why all the fuss. Prohibit means "make illegal" among other things. The law banned, prohibited, restricted, made illegal the civilian possession of certain new assault weapons and made provision to tell which ones were new. Most of the banned weapons had equivalents which remained legal. Why not get the details of this into the article, as well as the controversy generated by the required research, and stop worrying about whether one person's phrasing or another person's is better. That can be all cleaned up when you put the article up for Good Article review. For now, work on the content. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know where your opinions lie in the gun control spectrum, or how knowledgeable you are about the topic, so apologies if this seems talking down. At a high level, I will say that the exceptions to the "prohibit possession" part were huge, to the point where supporters of the law saw that as the major failing (and detractors saw it as the saving grace). Further, it is important to distinguish between a retroactive/confiscatory ban on possession, and a grandfathered ban on possession. This law had a grandfathered ban, and the grandfathering resulting in MANY MANY MILLIONS of guns still being legally owned, as well as all the "copycats" that continued to be legal to make and own. Therefore it is inaccurate to say in the lede that it "prohibited possession" without the additional context. Although that context was certainly provided later, the lede should stand on its own as accurate mini-article. (On re-read it is in the lede, but I think should be made more clear if the direction was to go to the alternate wording) This may seem pedantic, but there are many different gun laws on the books or proposed, and many of them are in fact retroactive, and the proposers of such bans (including and particularly Feinstein, the author of THIS ban) have stated that they want them to be retroactive and confiscatory. (Also see other international bans such as UK and AU where the ban on possession was retroactive and confiscatory). Gaijin42 (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but I think that StarryGrandma is referring largely to Lightbreather's ongoing effort to replace the word ban with restrict, rather than what you just discussed. North8000 (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dont think so, SG specifically went into "prohibit" in their last paragraph and edit summary commentary, which is what led me down the above rabbit hole. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * North, it's not true that I have an ongoing effort to replace "ban" with "restrict." In fact, once we've established what "the ban" means (as a short phrase for the law) in this article, we can probably mostly use it in the rest of the article. I've discussed this previously, and one of my many edits that was reverted was when I went in and standardized the language through-out by mostly (where appropriate) using "the ban." (It is called "the ban," "the law," and "the act" in different parts of the article. The reader must, upon getting to the Provisions section in its current state, say, "What's this 'Act' referring to? Is it a different 'Act' than the one I read about earlier that's called 'the ban'?")
 * Also, as I said to Anastrophe last night, a ban is a restriction, but a restriction is not a ban. A ban is a prohibition. If y'all go back and read the law, you'll see how these words are used in the subsection. The word "ban" is actually only used in the large capacity ammunition feeding device part. Still, as I just said, I am not opposed to use of "the ban" (mostly) in the rest of the article, if we do a good job of defining what we MEAN when we use the term.
 * You guys could just ask me these things, and not assume that I'm up to something. Lightbreather (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think the ban applies only to the magazines, you do not correctly understand the law. The guns themselves were just as banned, and both guns and magazines pre-ban were grandfathered. Ban is far and away the WP:COMMONNAME for the law, used universally by pro and anti groups, and spawning a whole sub-market for pre-ban weapons (Still existing in places like CA that passed their own ban) Gaijin42 (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that. I have read the law dozens of times. To reiterate: I am not opposed to use of "the ban" (mostly) in the rest of the article - if we do a good job of defining what is MEANT by the term. I actually tried standardize use of "the ban" before, as shown further down in this discussion. Lightbreather (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We (editors) don't interpret the text of the law in writing the article. We refer to reliable third party sources, not primary sources. The reliable third party sources that refer to the subject of this article as "the Federal Assault Weapon Restriction" can be found on the head of a pin. Plain english. It's known as a ban, it was a ban, switching it to 'restriction' rather than 'prohibition' is misleading and not supported by the sources. Law enforcement exceptions aren't notable to the lede, particularly when not even developed or sourced in the body (and it barely merits mention there). "In fact, once we've established what "the ban" means (as a short phrase for the law) in this article, we can probably mostly use it in the rest of the article." Editor lightbreather appears to be saying that it is not established that the Federal Assault Weapon Ban was a ban, and that we should establish this from a direct reading of the law - but allows that we can "probably mostly use it" (thank you). I see no wording here that's dispositive of a desire to collaborate, I'm sorry. We're now to have a discussion of the semantics of what "ban" means, and decide if it's okay to use that word in describing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, setting aside a bludgeoning preponderance of sources, because of editor Lightbreather's WP:OR? Anastrophe (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "The reliable third party sources that refer to the subject of this article as 'the Federal Assault Weapon Restriction' can be found on the head of a pin"? Anastrophe, please stop making sarcastic remarks when you reply to or about me, and please stop misrepresenting me. I did not propose changing the title of this article to that or say that the subject of this article was that. I was simply using the word that is used in the law itself, which begins:
 * SEC. 110102. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.
 * See also this article, which someone else posted a link to here today: Senate restricts assault weapon imports, production. Lead sentence: The Senate voted 52-48 today to restrict the import and manufacture of of semiautomatic assault weapons...."
 * Or this one, also posted by someone else: House rejects proposed ban on assault guns. Sixth paragraph begins: "A leading proponent of the restrictions attributed the defeat in large part to a sour mood among House members...."
 * If you want to argue that "ban" is better than "restriction" in the context in which I used it, fine. But again, please stop with the sarcasm and misrepresentation. Lightbreather (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've made no misrepresentations, nor was I being sarcastic. You have misread, or read into my words things that aren't there. Please reread, I never represented that you proposed renaming it. Please stop throwing around charges of misrepresentation where none exist.Anastrophe (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * (written before the above responses - edit conflict) The problem is that this was pushed into the lede based on an editor's original research. The details do belong in the article - in the body, sourced and cited as usual. The other problem is that the previous wording expressed essentially the same thing more directly. It's implicit that if new weapons cannot be manufactured, they likewise can't be possessed if they aren't being made. The lede should include the prohibition on certain magazines. But it's worth pointing out that you're skipping several intermediate revisions. The original version from two days ago has no serious problems that require a rewording. The lede certainly doesn't need to have the word 'ban' scrubbed from it and replaced with 'restriction' nor does the lede need non-notable details added such as law enforcement exceptions, as earlier edits did. The lede should never cover details that are not already in the body.Anastrophe (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I almost went down the "you cant possess what you cant manufacture" line of argument too, but on reflection, manufacture continued, for use by police/military so that's not really a solid argument (although certainly it would apply to home-brew manufacture) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Much of this could have been avoided simply by some tweaks to the already excellent wording, rather than a drastic rewording, for example,


 * "The expired Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), was a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The U.S. Federal law included a ban on the manufacture, transfer, and possession for civilian use of specific semi-automatic firearms and magazines over ten rounds capacity. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. The law was passed by the U.S. Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. It expired on September 13, 2004, per its sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, none have succeeded to date."


 * The edits in question were not as clearly written (setting aside the issue of WP:OR and exclusion of the word "ban"), and included details not covered in the body, said details which certainly belong in the body but are not notable enough for inclusion in an otherwise straightforward lede. Anastrophe (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

First, a request for Anastrophe. Please provide a diff or diffs to the edit or edits when I introduced original research into the lead. Lightbreather (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=prev&oldid=578998707


 * B. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=next&oldid=579001246


 * C. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=next&oldid=579001714


 * D. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=next&oldid=579007574


 * What is your source for removing 'ban' or 'prohibition' and replacing it with 'restriction'? Anastrophe (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU for the links. To answer your question, let's take a look at "A". I broke the lead sentence - which was 52 words, and a -20 (that's MINUS 20) on the Flesch-Kincaid reading ease score - into two sentences. Then, I changed the (new) second sentence from this:
 * "[It was] a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms."
 * To this: "The United States law restricted the manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines)."
 * The source was the law itself. The lead defines the law. A ban is a restriction, but a restriction is not (necessarily) a ban. Despite what "the ban" is commonly called, and the fact that I have said multiple times that I'm OK with using "the ban" in the article once we've defined the law it refers to, it is not just or only a ban. What was original research in the edit? Lightbreather (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "The source was the law itself.". That's WP:OR. An editor's interpretation of the meaning or wording of the text of the law is not acceptable per policy. "Despite what 'the ban' is commonly called" - "Despite"? It is not within an editor's purview to decide what 'the ban' is, was, or is commonly called, we rely on sources for this determination, not editor's personal opinions. Reliable sources - a tidal wave of reliable sources - make clear that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was a ban. Watering it down because of one editor's personal interpretation of the wording of the legal text itself is not acceptable. "Once we've defined the law it refers to" - no! We don't make that determination, the sources do. Editor Lightbreather is on a path of interpretation, rather than reliable sources. It's pleasant that editor Lightbreather is okay with using the term, but meaningless. Again - an utterly overwhelming preponderance of sources refer to the ban as a ban, and an overwhelming preponderance of source understand that the ban was a ban. I, for one, will not be dragged into a semantic argument that has no basis in reliable sources, and that will never stand up to policy scrutiny. So yes, I'm bowing out of this. I've never nominated an editor for ANI or any other sanctions, I'm not going to begin here. Others may do so. But being sucked into this vortex is a colossal waste of this - and likely other editor's - valuable time, on a completely unsupportable path. bon chance. Anastrophe (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually per WP:MOSLAW when primary and secondary sources differ on matters of law, the law wins - but a section title called "restriction" where that restriction is a complete prohibition is in no way in conflict with calling the ban a ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The term "restriction", in the context of this/a federal law, is a legal Term of Art. Thus why secondary sources are reliable for interpretation, and why we use them, rather than interpreting the meaning of the text of the law itself. Anastrophe (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Gaijin42. Last night, I spent several hours slogging through the WP policies, guidelines, essays, etc. trying to figure out how including the plain, English words in a law, or the facts of a law, in an article about a law could possibly be called OR. I also found the guideline you mention, specifically the Citations and referencing section, which says, and I quote: where primary and secondary sources conflict factually, the primary source should be given priority. The Wikipedia article about term of art "has multiple issues," as they say. I can't find anything in online legal dictionaries that define a special relationship between the terms "restriction" and "ban" that's at odds with plain English dictionaries. Lightbreather (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What is your source for the determination that the primary and secondary sources are in conflict factually? I'm asking for a citation of a source that identifies that the law as written is at odds with what secondary sources say it means. We base this encyclopedia on what others have written. We don't make the determination that the law and secondary sources are at odds. We use reliable sources for that determination. Again: I'm asking for your reliable source(s) that have suggested the facts are at odds, not your interpretation of whether they are at odds.Anastrophe (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * My accuser may think talking with me is a colossal waste of time, but I'm not going to let accusations stand without defending myself. Looking at the "B" diff:
 * Before: "The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment."
 * After: "The restrictions only applied to weapons and magazines manufactured after the ban's enactment; possession and transfer of weapons and magazines legally owned before enactment was not restricted."
 * Again, the source was the law itself. The edit was not OR. Lightbreather (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Diff "C" was also a good-faith edit after A. reverted my prior edit (without starting a discussion). I thought (mistakenly) that he didn't get it, and I wrote in my edit summary, "restored good-faith edit after revert; the ban *restricted* possession (prohibition in details)."
 * Finally, as for diff "D":
 * Before: "The United States law banned the manufacture and transfer of certain semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines). The ban only applied to weapons and magazines manufactured after the law's enactment; possession and transfer of weapons and magazines legally owned before enactment was not restricted."
 * After: "The United States law restricted the manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines). It allowed manufacture for and transfer to U.S. and state agencies and to legally qualified active and retired law-enforcment agents, but it prohibited civilian possession and transfer of most such weapons and magazines. Exceptions were provided, including weapons and magazines legally owned before the law was enacted."
 * The source was the law. There was no OR.


 * An editor making choices about what parts of the law to quote or use for interpretation constitutes WP:OR. It's very simple. Unless an editor is going to quote this entire law verbatim, the editor is making an editorial choice of what parts of the legal text to include in the article. That is not our editorial prerogative. The Act opens with "To make unlawful the transfer or possession of assault weapons." Why are we not choosing to use that as our starting point? It is the exact legal text. Then we don't even really need much of an article - "The assault weapon ban made it unlawful to transfer or possess assault weapons" full stop. And that doesn't even mention manufacture, so, quoting the legal text, it's incorrect to say that it restricted manufacture. Editor lightbreather is making personal judgement of what parts of the law to quote strictly, and what parts to interpret otherwise. Lumping large-cap magazines into the same bucket as assault weapons, even though the legal text clearly states that they are 'banned' and 'prohibited', invalidates the text that is protested to be accurate. This quagmire is why editors instead go to reliable sources for interpretation, rather than picking and choosing what parts of the raw legal text to use based upon their own interpretation of the meaning of the wording. Anastrophe (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Second, regarding accusations that I tried or am trying to replace the word "ban" or the term "the ban" with something else in the article. Here are six separate edits when I standardized use of the term:


 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=574959105&oldid=574958977
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=574954397&oldid=574952973
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=574952393&oldid=574951728
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=574662586&oldid=574661676
 * 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=574660781&oldid=574660079

Again, I think use of the term "the ban" throughout the article, when appropriate, would help the reader, as long as we don't try to hoodwink the reader into thinking that "the ban" was only about banning the manufacture of semiautomatic assault weapons for civilian use. Before we use the term "the ban" as a shorthand for the formal name of the law, or for the commonly used "assault weapons ban," we must clarify what "the ban" was. The controversy can be defined briefly in the lead and expanded in an appropriate section or sections. Lightbreather (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What controversy needs to be defined, specifically? Anastrophe (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * How would ""the ban" was only about banning the manufacture [and possession] of semiautomatic assault weapons [and magazines] for civilian use" be hoodwinking the reader? Thats EXACTLY what it DID do (albeit ineffectively due to the grandfather clause, and the ease of circumventing the ban features) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

This is why we discuss things before posting incorrect information and then edit warring over it. I think a read of WP:3RR and WP:CRUSH are in order here. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sue Rangell, I did not post "incorrect information." I appreciate that you think I am not editing in good faith. I also believe that other editors on this page know that is your opinion, too. Would you please stop repeating the same accusations? Or if you must, put them on my talk page with diffs to what you're challenging? Also, may I post to your talk page - or do you continue to prefer that I post on/reply to personal differences on this article's talk page? Lightbreather (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You did post incorrect information, based upon your own stated rationale. You included 'large cap magazines' under the banner of "restriction", whereas the law clearly states that they are banned/prohibited. You are interpreting the law apparently by whim, which is why we need to use reliable sources for determination of what the law is. Anastrophe (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Lightbreather : You are correct that there is no discrepancy between restriction and ban in this context. That is because the restriction was a ban. The word ban does not need to be defined, it is a very common English word. If that word needs to be explained, then so does restriction, and we can play that game running through the whole dictionary. WP:MOSLAW talks about when there is a conflict between the primary and secondary sources - it does not apply, because there is no conflict. The law DOES ban. That it chose to describe the ban as a restriction is irrelevant. per WP:EUPHAMISM we should describe the law in the most straightforward way, which is that manufacture or possession of newly made weapons and magazines that met the criteria, was banned (I would also accept prohibited here, but per WP:COMMONNAME gives more weight to ban). This is not in the least bit inaccurate or misleading. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Feinstein source : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY (Youtube convenience link, but we can cite 60 min directly)Gaijin42 (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gaijin. I appreciate the collegial response, and I respect your opinion... though I still have a slightly different one. I found the YouTube clip. I have also left a message with CBS News Services to see if I can get a transcript. There are a few to be found online, but from questionable sources. Lightbreather (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)