Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban/Archive 7

On why this article will be improved by a Context section
On Sept. 30, 2013, in this talk space, the questions were asked: "[If] this article is complete and NPOV, where is the background / introductory material? What are the origins of this law? Who wrote it? Why? Who supported it? What were the legal challenges that are alluded to?"

Gaijin42 replied: "[The] lack of origin/historical information is probably not a POV issue (in this case), but certainly it can be a lack of completeness. If you know of good sourcing, that would be an excellent addition."

So an "Origins" section was developed. Anastrophe and I took it through a BRD process. The result of that process can be seen in the article's history. Unfortunately, it was lost in a rollback later the same day.

The next day, a group of editors including Anastrophe, North8000, Sue Rangell, and I, agreed they would like the article to get a peer review. We got a few suggestions from outside editors later in that discussion. Editor Calathan wrote [in part]: From the formal peer review on Oct. 25, which said: "The article needs a short origins, history, or background section to put this law in context."
 * ... I do think some sections seemed biased and could use a rewrite. In particular, the first paragraph under "Criteria of an assault weapon" [the first section after the lead] seems problematic (which from what is written here, sounds to be one of the main parts in contention). That section of the article seems like it should be presenting only a list of criteria for what was prohibited by the ban, with no discussion in that section of whether the criteria made sense or whether the ban did anything useful. Instead, the first paragraph gives the impression that the criteria didn't really ban anything that was useful to ban. While that may be true, I don't think that is the right placement for that information, and placing it there does give the article the feel of having a pro-gun slant. Conversely, the section titled "compliance" says basically the same thing (that the criteria only amounted to cosmetic features, and only cosmetic changes were required to guns), but that section doesn't feel biased at all. Basically, it just feels wrong to place criticisms of the ban before a description of the ban itself, and that is what the article seems to be doing in its current state. ...

The following firearms-law related articles have background, context, or history information in their leads or in developed sections: Second Amendment, National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, Gun-Free School Zones Act, Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 1994.

Ideas? After finding and adding more opposition background, may I add the Context section?

--Lightbreather (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Instead, the first paragraph gives the impression that the criteria didn't really ban anything that was useful to ban. While that may be true, I don't think that is the right placement for that information, and placing it there does give the article the feel of having a pro-gun slant."; "Basically, it just feels wrong to place criticisms of the ban before a description of the ban itself, and that is what the article seems to be doing in its current state.". There is no criticism of the ban. There is no pro-gun slant (the sources for the word that it appears you are having an issue with are evenly balanced between the pro-rights and pro-control sides). "[F]eels wrong" seems awfully subjective. But since I don't want to assume, I'd like to know if by 'criticism' what is being referred to is the word "cosmetic". If not, what change to the text needs to be made to mitigate this impression that it is criticism and that it 'feels wrong'? Anastrophe (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm trying to understand exactly what the relevance of Editor Calathan's comments are, which have nothing at all to do with a context section. Why were they included in this? Anastrophe (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Anastrophe. I believe the editor's comments are more about placement of the Criteria section than its contents. Our reviewer said a similar thing: "I don't see that the article overall has problems with point of view. The positioning of some information may be awkward and lead to undue emphasis on it." Lightbreather (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay - but I still don't understand what direct relevance it has to a background/history/context section. Is it simply that such a section will come before the criteria section, thus pushing it lower and fixing its 'placement'? This isn't to say that I'm against a background section, nor that I don't think it should be immediately after the lede. But this draft of the context section as it stands gives a heavy 'pro-control' stance right out the gate (acknowledging that pro-rights content is being sought).Anastrophe (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I just added opposition info I could find that was contemporary to/with the ban. I even included the Feinstein quote from her 1995 interview on 60 Minutes. I was trying to keep sources from the section between 1989 and 1994 - which mirrors the background info from the source given to us by our peer reviewer - but to keep the peace and show that I am not trying to tip the article POV, I added it. Lightbreather (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's untangle the questions
I think we're blending too many different things together here. We have a significant discussion on the proposed context section previous to this. In this section that comes up again, plus some discussions of criteria section and sequencing and the recurring notes of a possible POV with the current article. We should separate these. And towards that end, I would ask this question: Does anybody here feel that the current article is slanted? And if so, could you describe what you feel gives it that slant? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Speaking of the Context section, I just added the opposition info I could find that was contemporary to (with) the ban. As a peace offering, I even included the Feinstein quote from her 1995 interview on 60 Minutes. I was really trying to keep sources from the section between 1989 and 1994 - which mirrors the background info from the source given to us by our peer reviewer - but there you go. If y'all have more/better sources, please share.


 * So is this section meant to be a discussion about placement, sequencing, etc.? Lightbreather (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually I was asking the question about the current article, overall. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that Calathan's comments of Oct. 1 and StarryGrandma's peer review of Oct. 25 do a great job of explaining why the article comes across as "slanted" (using your word, North, not mine). This is similar to what I tried to express back in August, but which got lost in those conversations. If you remember, my observation then was NOT that the word "cosmetic" (and I do NOT want to start that conversation again - please) didn't belong in the article, but that it didn't belong in that section of the article. Presently, we have an unusually short lead (for an article about a controversial topic) that partly defines the law and gives some other info... and then it launches immediately into the details of the ban. Our sources that deal with the whole law (ban) start with the top and work down, or start with the easier to understand and move into the more difficult. I have made a little table to show this, and this is NOT "OR" to put into the article, but a presentation by one editor for fellow editors to show how sources present the ban. The first column shows language of the ban itself, and the text in red is what the editors of this article have chosen to lead with and put in the first section. The other columns show how three sources present introductory information. None goes into what we've labeled "Criteria" (practically) first. Two that give all the named, banned weapons do so in tabular format (as SG has suggested) and the last just includes those details in text. Give me a minute while I upload my PDF file.

Lightbreather (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, now I'm completely confused. Editor Lightbreather just wrote "I think that Calathan's comments of Oct. 1 and StarryGrandma's peer review of Oct. 25 do a great job of explaining why the article comes across as "slanted"". I'm...baffled. Flummoxed. StarryGrandma's peer review of Oct 25 opened with the following statement:
 * "I don't see that the article overall has problems with point of view. The positioning of some information may be awkward and lead to undue emphasis on it." {emphasis mine}
 * How do we make the leap from 'has [no] problems with point of view' to 'the article comes across as slanted'? Please explain. In what way does StarryGrandma's opening sentence support this contention? Anastrophe (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * First, I am doing this from my "smart" phone so please, if something hinky happens, it's on account of that. StarryGrandma started with a positive comment. A good idea on any review, but especially on this article in the current editorial environment.
 * "I don't see that the article OVERALL has problems with point of view. The positioning of some information may be awkward and lead to undue emphasis on it." {emphasis mine} It goes on to say: "Like many articles on laws this one needs more organization and needs more information about the provisions of the law." It then gives a bulleted list of 16 items under 4 sections. SG's whole review, PLUS Calathan's comments address "slant" (again, North's word.)
 * Let's not leap from all of that feedback to saying the article "has [no] problems with point of view," because of course taken together those reviews do not support that statement either.
 * Let's just work on the suggestions. That's what I'd like to do. Lightbreather (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well Lightbreather, there might be a "win win" in all of this.  When I look at what you prepared, I see the current article as a reasonably good, straightforward NPOV summary which could be improved by including some of the objective material in the other sources you listed, and possibly by even incorporating some sequencing ideas from them.  (I think that there are a few misleading / biased items in those sources but they are only about 5% of the  material)  What YOU see is an article which you think has a POV problem which would be corrected by doing the same thing.  I don't know what others think, but my idea would be to do some incremental work at a taking it easy / no avalanches pace to see where /how that that goes.    North8000 (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope I didn't seem to suggest that we incorporate all of the material in those sources into the Context section. I think where the background/introductory material is similar, that's probably appropriate - and some of it might be appropriate for other sections, or not. My main point was that they start at the top, with the basics, and add the details at the appropriate time. Lightbreather (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't read it that way. but wondering if you might have been (mis) reading my post as thinking that.  My comments were more along the lines of to proceed SLOWLY, and a small amount at a time, with open discussion. North8000 (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sue Rangell ANI vote
Sue, you have repeatedly made personal attacks upon me and made accusations about me. I have asked you repeatedly to stop, and I've asked you to strike the accusations. My most recent requests are here, and here and here, after you wrote: "It is vandalism to repeatedly and knowingly, break links, wipe talk pages, and place false information into a Wikipedia article. Lightbreather has done all of these things."

I removed your harmful posts here, here, and here, with edit summaries "Removing harmful posts per WP:TPO, WP:WIAPA accusations about and criticisms of." WP:TPO says one may remove another editor's comments if they're "harmful posts, including personal attacks." WP:WIAPA says some comments are never acceptable, including:
 * Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.
 * Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page. Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor. For dispute resolution including how best to address the behavior of others, please follow WP:DR.

You have also accused me of making "victims" of other editors by changing or removing comments written by them - over the past months! Please either drop these accusations, or provide diffs so that I may defend myself. Your behavior constitutes bullying, and I am calling for the editors here to comment on whether or not it is appropriate to take this issue to ANI. --Lightbreather (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you take this to her talk page? This is quickly becoming disruptive to the article and it needs to stop.  Konveyor   Belt  21:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I could try, but when I've done that before, she's moved my "please stop" posts from her talk page to my talk page. Also, isn't the point of this to get feedback from other editors? As I say, I've tried repeatedly to get her to stop, but she just keeps coming at me. I think her objective is to either get me to stop participating here "voluntarily" (make it so painful, or scare the crap out of me so badly, that I just quit), or by ban or block.
 * I've said this before, but it needs repeating. I started on this article doing "BRD" edits (though I didn't know at the time that's what they're called). Then I was asked to discuss before I edit. If I "BRD" I'm asked to discuss, if I discuss I'm accused of being disruptive. The latest charge is WP:CRUSH. How the HECK does someone respond to that? It's basically an accusation of being civil! If I start being uncivil, I'll certainly be banned/blocked. Meanwhile - all I want to do is improve this article. We have a couple peer reviews, which I've been discussing with other editors here, rather than doing "BRD." Except for just quitting, "voluntarily," what else can I do? Lightbreather (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Starting duelling ANI discussions certainly isn't going to de-escalate the situation. Anastrophe (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather ANI vote
Lightbreather, you have gone through the comments and apparently sterilized anything that you do not want to read. You have changed or removed comments written by other editors. You have done this without discussion or permission. Your actions are completely unnacceptable. Here is one of many examples.I politely request that you return my comments, and the comments of any other editors whom you have similarly victimized, over the past months to their original states. Do this on this talk page as well as the archives if you have changed them (I haven't checked them yet). This constitutes vandalism, and I am calling for the editors here to comment on whether or not it is appropriate to take this issue to ANI. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm in pretty strong opposition to Lightbreather's "context" section idea both in concept and the draft. And they did get really wiki-wild previously. But the analysis that they did in the subsequent section (that image) looks promising.  My thought is to try to get into a mellowed out "wait and see" mode, while not avoiding direct spirited conversation on the content.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree completely about the "context" section. However I think it is completely unnacceptable to alter and remove comments on a talk page. This editor repeatedly does damage, and then claims it was an "error". I learned a long time ago not to take another editor to ANI unless there is a consensus, so I am hoping to get more comments here about LB's actions, the POV, vandalism (Whether intentional or unintentional), SPA considerations, WP:CRUSH activity, etc. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been watching this one from the sidelines, but I would agree with taking him to ANI. ROG5728 (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, North, for the vote to mellow out - but what does "And they did get really wiki-wild previously" refer to? Lightbreather (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * IMHO you previously did a lot of stuff that was sure to create fireworks (to put it mildly) on a contentious article. And the idea of drafting an entire new section of a likely-problematic type and content and asking for (only) feedback/help only in specific areas defined by you is IMHO repeating that problem and a looks like a "maneuver" in wiki-terms.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sue, I have asked you repeatedly to stop with the personal attacks and accusations. I have asked you numerous times to stop, and I've asked you to strike the accusations. Most recent requests here, and here and HERE, after you wrote: "It is vandalism to repeatedly and knowingly, break links, wipe talk pages, and place false information into a Wikipedia article. Lightbreather has done all of these things." Lightbreather (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed your harmful posts here, here, and here, with edit summaries "Removing harmful posts per WP:TPO, WP:WIAPA accusations about and criticisms of." WP:TPO says one may remove another editor's comments if they're "harmful posts, including personal attacks." WP:WIAPA says some comments are never acceptable, including:
 * Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.
 * Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page. Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor. For dispute resolution including how best to address the behavior of others, please follow WP:DR.


 * What else are you referring to? Diffs, please. Lightbreather (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * IF YOU WILL PLEASE PROVIDE DIFFS, I WILL DROP EVERYTHING THAT I AM WORKING ON AND WORK FULL TIME TO EXPLAIN EACH AND EVERY ONE. This invitation is open to any other editor who thinks I have knowingly vandalized their user spaces or articles or article talk pages. Lightbreather (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed this important caution in the policy you cite: "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection.". You have your objection. Please restore the comments you've scrubbed from this page. Sue's comments, while strongly worded and which can be read as personal attacks, rise nowhere near the threshhold that A Reasonable Person would suggest require scrubbing from the page. Remember that WP:TPO is a guideline not a policy. Removing other editor's comments is something that should be a last resort, because the likelyhood is that it will almost certainly just further inflame and aggravate the situation. It is, in short, a Very, Very, Bad Idea. If you become more familiar with wikipedia, you'll see that editors removing other editor's comments on talk page is not a common occurrence; but when it happens, it succeeds only in causing a shitstorm with high levels of collateral damage. Think twice, then think thrice again before doing it. Anastrophe (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Anastrophe, if someone repeatedly accused you of knowingly vandalizing pages and ignored your requests to strike those accusations, how would you respond? Lightbreather (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not by removing their comments. I've been here many years, interacted with hundreds of editors, been in some horrendously contentious fights, but I've never removed another editor's comments. Anastrophe (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I hear you. But what WOULD you do? Lightbreather (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I think it's a bad idea to speculate on what way I'd act. Anastrophe (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * And I repeat: objections have been raised to the removal of the comments. You need to restore them. Anastrophe (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a time-frame this has to be done in? How does one start a dispute resolution. You DO have more experience than I on Wikipedia. I feel bullied by Sue! What do I do? Lightbreather (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I may have more experience, but I don't have experience with dispute resolution - or at least, only minimal experience, having been notified of disputes and asked to weigh in. You do realize that you have repeated Sue's comments in your other commentary, which sort of defeats the entire purpose of having scrubbed them from the page in the first place? Just put them back where they were, and let it go. It's not a path or fight I think is worth the time. That's just my opinion. Again, I've been in countless disputes over the years, disputes 'lite' and disputes '10 ton weight on the heart'. It's important to keep in mind that wikipedia is largely anonymous. Your reputation here is as a username, nothing more. You are not your username. "Sue Rangell" may be a nom de guerre, nom de plume, her real name, or some other real person's name. So even if Sue comes here and says 'no, I really am named Sue Rangell', there's no real way to prove it, not in the 21st century. I'm only known as anastrophe, and while it's not ridiculously difficult to piece together who I may be, it's also ridiculously easy to fall down a manhole during the search. We only know you as Lightbreather. What reputation you have attached to your username is not you. It's a string of characters. I'm digressing badly. I think I need a shot of whiskey to clear my head. Anastrophe (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If I say, "Please don't accuse me of vandalizing," that's way different than having someone else say, "You are a vandal." I'd much rather have my request floating around than someone else's accusations. Also, unless my real-world identity gets "outed," I'm not worried about my real-world reputation. But I am worried about my reputation as a WP editor. I don't want a scarlet letter on my virtual breast - and I don't deserve one. I've made mistakes in the past (we all have) I may make mistakes in the future (we all may), but I don't deserve to be bullied or harassed or hounded or whatever the heck is going on here.
 * I'm going to have a late lunch... and maybe have hubby make me a martini! Lightbreather (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sue, my thoughts are to still repeat my original request.....basically that we all dial back a bit and take a "wait and see" approach, while not avoiding spirited discussion on content. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Changes to lead per peer review
Please note I've made some changes to the lead per the recent, excellent peer review. To do so required changing language a little, which actually improved its accuracy and clarity.

BEFORE: 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.

AFTER: 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. 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. 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.

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe keeps changing my good-faith efforts to improve the article, without starting a discussion - which I understand to be the currently accepted protocol on this article. He seems to want the lead to emphasize the ban portion of the law, but the ban was just that... a portion of the law. Please compare before/after above to what Anastrophe has changed it to:


 * 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 banned the manufacture and transfer 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. 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. 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.

Please see page 201 of the law itself: --Lightbreather (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * SEC. 110102. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.
 * (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 semiautomatic assault weapon.
 * ‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.
 * ‘‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—


 * The ban was indeed a portion of a law - the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The ban itself, which is what this article is about, was exactly that, a ban on weapons, in the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. Attempting to de-emphasize what this article actually is about is rather bizarre. It was a ban on certain weapons, that's why it called, you know, a 'ban'. Details about the fact that the weapons weren't banned for law enforcement and other agencies is not terribly notable (they are only notable in the case where the lawmakers forget to add exceptions, as they did in the NY ban earlier this year), nor is it covered in depth in the body of the article, thus it is WP:UNDUE in the lede. Anastrophe (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, "which actually improved its accuracy and clarity." is incorrect - it reduced clarity and accuracy by contending that possession was banned, which it was not. Anastrophe (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * First, I did *not* try to de-emphasize anything. I was correcting the lead to show that the "assault weapons ban" wasn't just about assault weapons and didn't just flat-out ban them. But I don't want to argue about my intentions or yours... I want to improve the lead. So, first question: Is this article about the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act? Yes or no. Lightbreather (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but I do not respond well at all to being told that I am limited in how I may answer a question on the discussion page. Please rephrase your question civilly. You are not my mother. Anastrophe (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please don't read something into my question that isn't there. Also, please avoid "you" statements. I am trying to keep this on content. Lightbreather (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Can we please just drop the repeated calls to 'avoid "you"'? It's annoying. When a particular editor's conduct or edits are in question, it is not ad hominem to refer to them as 'you' (or he or she or it). Above, you wrote "He seems to want the lead to emphasize [...]" - good for the goose but not for the gander? I'm talking about content too. Anastrophe (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "He seems to" admits an impression and uncertainty, "Attempting to de-emphasize" does not. Lightbreather (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which should be self-evident. 'FAWB' is analagous to 'PSRFUPA'. It was a ban on certain types of firearms and magazines. Is a 'restriction' a 'ban'? Yes, self-evident by this law, its common name, and the Reasonable Person test. I've no desire to be sucked into a vortex of semantics which will only serve to obfuscate rather than illuminate. Anastrophe (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is about the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, which is commonly called the assault weapons ban but is not just about banning assault weapons. Just as some newspaper readers only go so far as to read the headline and the first paragraph or two of a story, some Wikipedia readers only read the lead of a WP article. If the article is about the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, which it is, then we could do a much better job of summarizing the law in the lead. Did it ban the manufacture of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines for civilian use? Yes. Is that a clear and accurate summary of the law? Only for one part of the law - so the answer is, no.


 * A ban is a restriction, but a restriction is not a ban. A ban is a prohibition. There are distinctions - especially important in an article about a law. Lightbreather (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * So we are going to get sucked into a vortex of semantics. The lede only needs one change: to include certain kinds of magazines as part of the ban. It already made clear that existing weapons in civilian hands were not banned. Your edits confused matters through a poor construct that was suggestive that 'possession' was also banned, by lumping it in with other points - ironically, making it deviate even further from the very first item the peer review suggested be improved. The inclusion of the law enforcement exception is not notable at all. So, we have an edit that 1) presented the summary inaccurately and unclearly, 2) added details that are not notable either to the lede or the body, 3) subsituted the word "restrict" for the word "ban", contrary to any reasonable test of the nomenclature (the wording of the law - a primary source - is not probative to what vast numbers of third party sources clearly understand to be a ban). The changes are a step backwards in clarity, with the exception of the inclusion that certain magazines were banned as well. I repeat that I believe it should be reverted back to yesterday's version, with the one change being inclusion of magazines.Anastrophe (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Disagree. 2) Disagree. 3) Untrue, misrepresentation. Lightbreather (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "He seems to want the lead to emphasize" - how about we refrain from engaging in personalized speculations about motives, okay? The changes you made did not improve the clarity of the lede at all. The lede should speak directly to the subject of the article. A Reasonable Person understands that this article about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban is about a ban on certain types of firearms (I've no objection to the inclusion that it banned certain types of magazines as well). De-emphasizing that reduces accuracy and clarity. Certain weapons were banned - no Reasonable Person can contradict that. Let's keep the article focused on exactly what the article is about, rather than watering it down and obfuscating the meaning with irrelevancies (to the lede) about the entirely unnotable fact that law enforcement wasn't prohibited from these weapons. Certain firearms and magazine were banned from inception of the law from manufacture and transfer. Previously owned weapons were not banned from possession, a glaring inaccuracy introduced by the earlier edit. Slow down. Anastrophe (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Slow down"? We have an excellent peer review that made some good points. I studied that. I studied the lead. I made a few changes. I didn't do anything hasty. Please don't command. Lightbreather (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I propose that the lede be restored to where it was yesterday. I have no objection to inclusion of the fact that certain magazines and certain named models were also banned. The other proposed changes are WP:UNDUE for unnotable facts (law enforcement exception). Anastrophe (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I made a few changes (above), which you reverted (I assumed in good faith because your edit summary about why you'd reverted it was inaccurate). I restored my changes again, clarifying the misunderstanding. You reverted a second time (with an uncivil edit summary). I rewrote my few changes as a good-faith attempt to compromise.


 * You reverted a third time with an edit summary that said there were "[s]everal inaccuracies."


 * I propose that we restore my last proposal - which had no inaccuracies. Further, the fact that the government and law-enforcement were exempt from the ban might be "unnotable" for its own article, but it was a provision of the law that's worth stating here (not assuming it's understood) without mentioning again. The net difference? Two sentences and 30 words.


 * 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). It allowed manufacture for and transfer to U.S. and state agencies and to legally qualified active and retired law-enforcement 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 were not banned.


 * The ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. It expired on September 13, 2004, per a 10-year sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, none have succeeded to date.
 * --Lightbreather (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not within our bailiwick as editors to interpret this law. The edits editor Lightbreather has provided are the result of editor interpretation of the wording of the law - per the section reproduced above as rationale for the edits - rather than generated by contextual reference to Reliable Sources. As such, it is a priori inappropriate, since it is unsourced, and unreferenced elsewhere in the article. It needs to be struck until it is reworded for better clarity, as the predominant understanding in reliable sources is not that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was not a ban but instead just some restrictions, nor that it banned possession (if we are to delve into interpretation of the legal text, purely as an exercise, it's worth pointing out that in my interpretation those weapons that were banned for manufacture after the date of the law could not therefore be transferred or possessed since they could not be created, thus everything beyond 'manufacture' in the first line of the law is superfluous. The same weapons that were banned could legally be transferred and possessed if they existed prior to the law. The wording proferred muddies the 'possession' distinction, where the former wording does not. Thus, why we as editors do not perform our own original research when editing information for inclusion in the encyclopedia.) Anastrophe (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather please stop edit warring. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sue Rangell please stop with the WP:PA. I made good-faith edits based on a peer review, which my edits/summaries for the past 24-hours clearly shows six times: here, here, here, here, here, and here. When it was clear that Anastrophe disagreed with them, I started this discussion. Would you please strike/delete your comments? They misrepresent my edits. Lightbreather (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not a personal attack to call edit warring edit warring, which your 6 diffs show quite clearly. (If anastrophe is on the other side of all 6 diffs, then that accusation probably applies to him as well however). This is a clear violation of WP:3RR. The accusation of edit warring is of course entirely separate from if your edits were appropriate or not. Even if you are 100% correct in your edits, it is still a violation to edit war them in. (As my 1 entry on my block log shows) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The edits don't constitute vandalism, but they do constitute behavior that is problematic considering the recent past history. Anastrophe (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We'll have to agree to disagree. Editor LB says the broken links and talk page issues were mistakes; based on the general history of good faith editing (regardless of the degree to which those edits are tendentious or not supported by sources), i don't think they rise to the level of true vandalism, and a standard reading of the policy tends to support that. But I don't have a dog in this fight, so again - I agree that we disagree. Anastrophe (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am reviewing old discussions before they get archived, and I am asking Sue Rangell to please apologize for and strike those last two comments. If they get archived they will be floating around Wikipedia forever, and they are - and this is something I hate to say - lies. If you apologize for and strike them, I will strike this request. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is harassment to repeatedly and intentionally target a specific person with threats and intimidation to undermine or frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. Sue_Rangell has done all of these things. Lightbreather (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that the spirited debate with Lightbreather will continue regarding their content direction content / changes. But IMHO we should try to mello this out a bit and have some fun while we;re doing that.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point re: details of titles, authors, grants, etc.
While discussing the Context section in development, Anastrophe brought up a point that is worth considering when looking at other parts of the article. He said: This is a point worth applying to the whole article. Many of the details in the article in its present state seem unnecessary and therefore distracting.
 * We don't need a recapitulation of the details of what the title and subtitle of the law are, the authors names, who provided the grants, etc, - in the body of the text. Those details are better placed in the references, it's not necessary that they be spelled out in such detail in what should be summarizing language.

Also, having Wikilinks to Lott's books, in addition to references, seems promotional.

Since the single-sentence paragraph at the end of the Expiration section has a dead-link reference, I think it should be deleted.

I can maybe see including the sentence about Holder - though it's five years after the ban expired - but the DEA/Leonhart sentence? I think the Obama and Holder paragraphs could be merged and better summarized. --Lightbreather (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply we should get rid of all of these, BTW. I just think we should consider them and maybe delete or de-emphasize some. Lightbreather (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Background (proposed)
Below is my proposed Background section. Gentlemen (and ladies) I have tried to find some good quality sources from 1989-1994 for a well-developed "opposed" paragraph or two - maybe from the NRA, NSSF, SAF, GOA? - but I am having a hard time finding anything useful. If you can suggest something, please let me know. Here are some sources I found from that time that at least mention the NRA. I'm going to go back and re-read them now.


 * http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/14/us/california-becomes-the-first-state-to-vote-curbs-on-assault-rifles.html
 * http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/15/us/us-bans-imports-of-assault-rifles-in-shift-by-bush.html
 * http://articles.latimes.com/1989-05-24/news/mn-745_1_assault-weapons-bill-signing-stockton-schoolyard
 * http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/08/us/import-ban-on-assault-rifles-becomes-permanent.html
 * http://articles.latimes.com/1989-07-30/magazine/tm-819_1_assault-weapons
 * http://articles.courant.com/1993-12-20/news/0000000491_1_gun-control-assault-weapons-assault-weapon-law
 * http://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/crime/kaminer1.htm
 * http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-05/news/mn-54185_1_assault-weapons-ban
 * http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-06/news/mn-54512_1_assault-weapons-ban
 * http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1994-05-08/news/1994128021_1_assault-weapon-ban-gun-control-gun-ban
 * http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1994-05-08/news/9405080319_1_weapons-ban-semiautomatic-assault-weapons-gun-control

Also, re: the Sugarmann paragraph at the end, I'm open to suggestions for putting it elsewhere in the article, but I really think it needs to go in somewhere. The Violence Policy Center has been a cited source on gun-control issues for years, but the opposition I've heard here so far here (unless I missed something) is that the VPC changed its mind about AWB 1994, so its opinion on the AWB is moot. But that would be like saying Wayne LaPierre and the NRA once supported background checks, but now they don't, so their opinion on BGCs is moot.

Looking forward to feedback...

Background Context
The assault weapons ban was Title XI, Subtitle A, of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. A section of the ban directed the U.S. Attorney General to provide Congress with a report on its effects, especially on violent and drug-trafficking crime. The result, published in 1997, was Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994. The report was funded by a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) grant and written by research associates at the Urban Institute. Its primary authors were Jeffrey A. Roth and Christopher S. Koper. In addition to explaining the ban's provisions and presenting preliminary findings, the report also put the ban's origins in context.

In a brief version of the report published in 1999, Roth and Koper said that "[T]he Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, as its title suggests, attempted to balance two competing policy goals. The first was to respond to several mass shooting incidents committed with military-style and other semiautomatics equipped with magazines holding large amounts of ammunition. The second consideration was to limit the impact of the ban on recreational gun use by law-abiding owners, dealers, and manufacturers."

Roth and Koper outlined five mass shootings between July 1984 and December 1993 accounting for 86 deaths and 76 injuries. Among these, 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 children died.

In March 1989, 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.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) opposed 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. [Put more content and other sources here for second consideration (above) and opponents of 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 January 1994, Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, said handguns and assault weapons should be banned. In May 1994 of that year, 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.

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) 22:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the best intentions, such a section is inevitably Wikipedia editors selecting / building a list of talking points / arguments for and against the ban. Also editors selecting and stating particular reasonings as the motivations of proponents of the ban. For example opponents don't just argue the effectiveness of the ban. Opponents generally say that the hard core opponents of firearm ownership was the actual motivation, and they tried to capitalize on tragedies, and sow and capitalize on confusion between military weapons and the ones affected by this ban in order to pass a ban that bans common firearms, such as the pistol configurations that police routinely carry. I'd rather avoid that slippery slope and it is not directly about the subject of the article. Right now it is a pretty straightforward article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"Background" is too broad and open to interpretation. Let's stick to the specific history of this law, rather than speculative history based upon iterative predicates of this law. As this draft stands, if it's to be comprehensive/accurate, it should begin with the 1934 NFA. Are there secondary sources that say that all of the listed details in this draft are predicate to the law, or have they just been chained together by discretion? We need to be mindful of scope and relevance, particularly wrt WP:UNDUE. . Anastrophe (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Our article's review suggests that it needs a short origins, history, or background section to put it in context. The review refers to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (crime bill) background statement. It suggests our article needs a statement like that and also refers to the beginning of the research brief from the first NIJ impact evaluation.


 * The crime-bill lead's second paragraph (background) says:


 * "Following the 101 California Street shootings, the 1993 Waco Siege, and other high-profile instances of violent crime, the act expanded federal law in several ways. One of the most noted sections was the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Other parts of the act provided for a greatly expanded federal death penalty, new classes of individuals banned from possessing firearms, and a variety of new crimes defined in statutes relating to immigration law, hate crimes, sex crimes, and gang-related crime."
 * The NIJ Brief leads with (first two paragraphs):
 * The NIJ Brief leads with (first two paragraphs):


 * "On January 17, 1989, Patrick Edward Purdy, armed with an AKS rifle—a semiautomatic variant of the military AK–47—returned to his childhood elementary school in Stockton, California, and opened fire, killing 5 children and wounding 30 others. Purdy, a drifter, squeezed off more than 100 rounds in 1 minute before turning the weapon on himself.


 * "During the 1980s and early 1990s, this tragedy and other similar acts of seemingly senseless violence, coupled with escalating turf and drug wars waged by urban gangs, sparked a national debate over whether legislation was needed to end, or at least restrict, the market for imported and domestic “assault weapons.” Beginning in 1989, a few States enacted their own assault weapons bans, but it was not until 1994 that a Federal law was enacted."


 * The brief mentioned in our peer review was published in 1999 and is a condensed version of the full report published in 1997. The full report has two pages of "context" that appears to be where the brief summary came from. Rather than discuss background vs. history, may I suggest "Context" as a compromise on the section title?


 * At any rate, since no preponderance of sources found it necessary to give a history of U.S. firearms law prior to 1989, it would be inappropriate for us to do so. That would belong in an article about the history of firearms law in the U.S. If there is something in the draft that you think doesn't belong there, let's discuss that and maybe cut it. I'd rather make the section shorter rather than longer (though I would like another sentence or two re: opposition). Lightbreather (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The crime bill lede could probably stand to be trimmed too. Relevance based on what sources say is what matters, not what we think is relevant. I'm not proposing making it longer, I was being ironic. Unless reliable sources say that X/Y/Z were predicate to this law, we don't include them. "Law enforcement says they are outgunned" is a common refrain repeated in favor of many, many gun control laws (regarless of its falsity and speciousness). Again - have these been strung together via editor discretion, or are these the details that reliable sources say were predicate to this law? (The 'this other article says this' argument is invalid - countless articles have problems and need fixing, the assumption here seems to be that the VCCLEA is canonical. We don't work from assumptions.) Anastrophe (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The sources - reliable and verifiable - are listed. Irony doesn't come across well in writing. (I tried it a few times before and it didn't go well.) If law enforcement says they are outgunned in numerous reliable, verifiable sources, it's an argument that can't be dismissed because an editor thinks it's false or specious. (Maybe if a tsunami of reliable, verifiable sources say it's false and specious... That's irony.) In an article about as controversial a topic as gun control, a good editor wouldn't dismiss the claim. He or she would briefly state what law enforcement says, briefly state what other reliable, verifiable sources say - and let the reader decide what he/she makes of the debate. Lightbreather (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not dismissing the 'law enforcement says/nurses say' statement - i'm asking for the specific citation to where those claims are directly linked to this law. as user Gaijin42 mentioned, it would be helpful if the cites were inline, it's impossible to tell which ref goes with which statement otherwise, and as a courtesy to your peers - so that we don't each have to sift through the sources and do the matching up - if they could be cited inline it would save everyone else a lot of trouble. Who is quoting law enforcement/nurses? As heresay statements (likely) expanded coverage of what rank and file law enforcement said, or what average NRA members said, would balance that one-sided statement. Anastrophe (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, the first two paragraphs - based on a report from mid-ban - is nearly a third of the draft, but ultimately boils down to just the last two sentences of the second graf, which offers a relevant rationale. The last graf quote from Sugarmann need only state that they supported the ban. It is already covered later in the article that they changed their stance after the law was in place - which implicitly means it's not part of the background. Anastrophe (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Lastly, the draft includes Senator Feinstein's complaint that the bill was a weakened version of the original proposal. That inclusion certainly merits details of just what that original proposal was: A ban and confiscation, as Senator Feinstein stated herself. For completeness, these details should be included. Anastrophe (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can give me a link to a transcript of the source, I agree. You mentioned a 60 Minutes interview once before, but I can't find a link to a good source for the transcript. Lightbreather (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Lightbreather
 * It would have been helpful had you put the citations inline as it would be in the article, so we could verify which sources were backing which statements.
 * In particular I am interested in the "lawmen and nurses" line, and how tightly the source associates those statements to the bill.
 * Also, that statement is exceedingly vague. Which lawmen, which nurses. Was it a handful, or a survey done where some large percentage said this, etc.
 * The 1997 study I feel is getting WP:UNDUE weight (3 paragraphs for one source?), while it can be used, we should not be presenting its findings as facts, but as the opinions of those authors.
 * That California banned weapons is irrelevant to the federal bill
 * Agree that Feinsteins complaint about being watered down should include the context of what she wanted "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

Some possible additional sources Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JGcxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6BIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6963,4617165&dq=assault-weapon&hl=en
 * http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=onk0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=6pYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7212,4372530&dq=assault-weapon&hl=en
 * http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=wbkiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QLUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1505,2654042&dq=assault-weapon&hl=en


 * Sorry, Gaijin42, about how I presented the sources. I have been struggling with how to do that in a talk-page discussion. In an article, you have a reflist, and that's pretty straightforward, but when you try to use a reflist on a talk page you end up with weird results. If you have tips on doing this, or can point me to a WP resource that does, I would be most beholden. Actually, I just had an idea, so I'll go back and try that... Lightbreather (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh man, that is a cool trick, Gaijin! I looked for how to do that, but couldn't figure it out. That's why my old talk-page drafts have such hinky references. Thanks! (I see some mistakes in the list. Are you still working on it?) Lightbreather (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I didnt do anything to the list, I just added the reflist template. Everything else was autogenerated by the links you made. I suggest moving those sources inline to the text just like in an article. That will make it easy to evaluate the sources, and if this content is ultimately promoted to the article, would make it a simple copy/paste job. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Going to lunch. Will fix when I get back. Lightbreather (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Other sources I'd like to find are statements or transcripts from the Congressional hearings at the time, or news reports of the hearings. Those ought to have statements from the ban's opposition - but I couldn't find them. Lightbreather (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Context (3rd draft)
The assault weapons ban was Title XI, Subtitle A, of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. A section of the ban directed the U.S. Attorney General to provide Congress with a report on its effects, especially on violent and drug-trafficking crime. The result, published in 1997, was Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994. The report was funded by a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) grant and written by research associates at the Urban Institute. Its primary authors were Jeffrey A. Roth and Christopher S. Koper. In addition to explaining the ban's provisions and presenting preliminary findings, the report also put the ban's origins in context.

In a brief version of the report published in 1999, Roth and Koper said: "[T]he Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, as its title suggests, attempted to balance two competing policy goals. The first was to respond to several mass shooting incidents committed with military-style and other semiautomatics equipped with magazines holding large amounts of ammunition. The second consideration was to limit the impact of the ban on recreational gun use by law-abiding owners, dealers, and manufacturers."

Roth and Koper outlined five mass shootings between July 1984 and December 1993 accounting for 86 deaths and 76 injuries. Among these, 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 children died.

In March 1989, 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 January 1994, Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, said handguns and assault weapons should be banned. In May of that year, 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.

Alan Simpson, R-WY, and other senators called for tougher criminal penalties instead of gun bans. In October 1991, after a massacre in Killeen, Texas, gun control opponents pointed out that the pistols used by the gunmen were not even on the proposed list of banned weapons. Gun makers and the National Rifle Association (NRA) questioned the constitutionality of assault weapons bans. 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. One year later, McIntyre said, "We are going to do what we can to make sure no gun ban becomes law." Many opponents of the ban said that Feinstein's intention in writing the ban was confiscation, an argument supported by one of her remarks in a news interview in February 1995. She said: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in' - I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

Great another information flood. The article as it stands is pretty straightforward, and neutral. I don't think it needs a new section with all new material. If somebody feels that there is material already in the article that should be compiled into a new section, then great! But as far as I can tell, this is just more WP:CRUSH, designed to work WP:OR and WP:POV into the article. I'm sorry, but I am opposed to any major changes to this article, because it's already very complete and stable, and needs no re-writes. If an entire new section is warranted, then let's start it off with information that is already in the article, not a flood of new stuff. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that such a new section would be a bad idea.  By it's very nature it would be a POV magnet / wp:coatrack.  And such would change situation from a straightforward on-target article to a wandering dramafest.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also the approach of picking the stated reasons and talking points of the proponents as the background/context (and then for the other side giving only responses to those selected topics)  is inherently POV.  For example, the stated reason for most of the 2013 US government shutdown was the downsides of Obamacare.   But in the article on the shutdown, you don't seen an analysis of the downsides of Obamacare (and maybe rebuttals to those statements)  in a big "context" section there. North8000 (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If it sounded like I was suggesting that approach, I didn't mean to. I would like to develop some opposition material concurrent with the birth of the ban, not as a counterpoint to what proponents said, but as a summary of what the opposition's main objections were. Lightbreather (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that you intended to but IMO that is what you did. You have given/selected  the pro-ban  talking points/reasons as the relevant background, and then are seeking pro's and con's on those talking points.    That is one step too late in the process.  For example, the background could be a discussion of who proposed it and their previous history of such proposals. That is why IMO one of the reasons that such a possible section is so problematic.  North8000 (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, and not just by me, the first three paragraphs are derived from a single source, and certainly flirt with WP:UNDUE. (Previous sentence - beginning with "As previously mentioned..." - is by Anastrophe; I am adding a line break here to reply to that.)
 * Just to clarify, do you mean the three paragraphs beginning with the paragraph that starts "The assault weapons ban..." or the one that starts "In a brief version..."? Lightbreather (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm aware that five sources are listed in the section. The directly relevant background information is from a single source, which is covered in the trimmed version I provided. Anastrophe (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Yes" isn't really a useful response to an 'or' construct, sorry. Yes, the first three paragraphs, that implicitly begin with "The assault weapons ban". Anastrophe (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's not.  ;-)   <--- And that is a friendly wink. OK. That helps me to digest your proposal. (As an aside, I am preparing to have a house-guest most of this month, so I will be editing in spurts. And, I will be trying to put lots of thought into my questions and comments when I am able to get in my computer - which is on my office/guest-room. So, please, be patient.) Lightbreather (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Now that I understand I can write a reply. First, the only other editor I see who suggested that the first three paragraphs have only one source was Gaijin, on Oct. 31. That was my fault, because it was before he showed me the cool reflist code to use on a talk page - so the sources for that first draft were hard to discern. In fact, as the citations for the draft now shows, there are five sources for that information. One is the law itself. Two more are the report that the AG was directed to present and the brief from that report. Two others are newspaper reports. The reason I didn't use only the mandated report or its brief?
 * In August, when I added a sentence to the lead about legal challenges to the ban, it was moved to the body of the text until a section on legal challenges was developed. When a legal challenges section was developed, one of the reasons that was given for not putting it in the article was that it needed more sources. I'm not bringing this up to re-open a discussion about legal challenges, but to show that's why I looked for more sources to support the report's background/context information. I took the previous requests to heart. Lightbreather (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's a trimmed version that contains the same relevant material.


 * The ban included a directive to the U.S Attorney General to report on the efficacy of the ban. The first report, in 1997, summarized the stated goals of the ban as an attempt to respond to several mass shooting incidents committed using weapons similar to those banned, while minimizing the effect the ban might have on recreational and other use by law-abiding owners, dealers, and manufacturers. The authors of the report pointed to several high-profile mass shootings that provided the impetus to move towards a ban.

Same information. Details such as the section and title of the law, grant funding, authors names, etc, should be placed in the refs where they belong. One paragraph.
 * I'm sorry, but the suggestion in your second sentence is unclear to me. Would you please elaborate on what you mean by "Details such as the section and title of the law, grant funding, authors names, etc, should be placed in the refs where they belong."? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't need a recapitulation of the details of what the title and subtitle of the law are, the authors names, who provided the grants, etc, - in the body of the text. Those details are better placed in the references, it's not necessary that they be spelled out in such detail in what should be summarizing language. Anastrophe (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I partly agree, but your comment brings something else to mind. May I start another section to discuss things that come up secondary to this discussion - which is already pretty long? Lightbreather (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The Stockton shooting is mentioned in numerous sources. I only included a couple because I didn't want to introduce citation overkill. Here's something between my original (243 words) and your trimmed version (86 words, but a 14th grade level per the Flesch-Kincaid readability index).


 * The assault weapons ban directed the U.S. Attorney General to provide Congress with a report on its effects within 30 months of enactment. In addition to explaining the ban's provisions and presenting preliminary findings, the report also put the ban's origins in context. A brief version of the report said: "[T]he Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, as its title suggests, attempted to balance two competing policy goals. The first was to respond to several mass shooting incidents committed with military-style and other semiautomatics equipped with magazines holding large amounts of ammunition. The second consideration was to limit the impact of the ban on recreational gun use by law-abiding owners, dealers, and manufacturers." The full report outlined five mass shootings between July 1984 and December 1993. Among these, 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 children died.

It's 155 words - 88 words less than orig., 69 more than yours - with grade 12 readability. Lightbreather (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, Feinstein's quote is relevant to info earlier, so should be juxtaposed with it. It doesn't require the quote in the body, putting it in the ref would be fine. Something along the lines of "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, which would have been an outright ban and confiscation of the weapons". Anastrophe (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop
This fight is doing nothing to advance the article, and I'm this close to dragging you all to ANI for tendentious editing and disrupting the article when it could be resolved elsewhere.  Konveyor   Belt  22:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll be MORE than happy to drop my complaint if she'll drop hers. Is it Wiki-kosher to suggest that? I just want to work on the article, not argue about behavior. Lightbreather (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

My comments have been edited and removed without my permission and without discussion unilaterally by a single editor. It appears that the consensus is that this behavior is acceptable. Therefore, I will be editing in other areas of Wikipedia where I do not have to be concerned with this issue. Be well everyone and happy editing. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sue, your question wasn't whether or not it is acceptable. Your question was whether people support taking LB to wp:ani on that issue which was refactoring/removal of your comment and her response.  In my 36k edits worth of interactions, I've only taken one person there, so for me it is a pretty high bar and even then I didn't weigh in either way.  Sincerely,  North8000 (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No one is asking you to leave or not edit. It's just that this dispute is disruptive to the talk page and should be taken elsewhere. I'm fully in favor of taking the problem to a notice board, perhaps not ANI but maybe Rfc/U or something.  Konveyor   Belt  03:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Review of proposed Context section
I'm reposting the "Context" section here with my review comments. The history of this legislation is fascinating. I hadn't known most of it. I had not remembered that in the old days it was not a partisan issue, that it divided the Democrats and it divided the Republicans. Just think how the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary committee (and NRA member) Jack Brooks must have felt when he sent the bill off to the Senate and they erased its contents completely. And then put their own bill in, with an amendment to ban assault weapons. And then asked for a conference with the House. The House did not answer. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Context (3rd draft)
The assault weapons ban was Title XI, Subtitle A, of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. A section of the ban directed the U.S. Attorney General to provide Congress with a report on its effects, especially on violent and drug-trafficking crime. The result, published in 1997, was Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994. The report was funded by a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) grant and written by research associates at the Urban Institute. Its primary authors were Jeffrey A. Roth and Christopher S. Koper. In addition to explaining the ban's provisions and presenting preliminary findings, the report also put the ban's origins in context.

In a brief version of the report published in 1999, Roth and Koper said: "[T]he Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, as its title suggests, attempted to balance two competing policy goals. The first was to respond to several mass shooting incidents committed with military-style and other semiautomatics equipped with magazines holding large amounts of ammunition. The second consideration was to limit the impact of the ban on recreational gun use by law-abiding owners, dealers, and manufacturers."

Roth and Koper outlined five mass shootings between July 1984 and December 1993 accounting for 86 deaths and 76 injuries. Among these, 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 children died.

In March 1989, 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 January 1994, Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, said handguns and assault weapons should be banned. In May of that year, 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.

Alan Simpson, R-WY, and other senators called for tougher criminal penalties instead of gun bans. In October 1991, after a massacre in Killeen, Texas, gun control opponents pointed out that the pistols used by the gunmen were not even on the proposed list of banned weapons. Gun makers and the National Rifle Association (NRA) questioned the constitutionality of assault weapons bans. 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. One year later, McIntyre said, "We are going to do what we can to make sure no gun ban becomes law." Many opponents of the ban said that Feinstein's intention in writing the ban was confiscation, an argument supported by one of her remarks in a news interview in February 1995. She said: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in' - I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."


 * Wow, StarryGrandma, when you give, you give 110 percent. Great research. I am picking up my sister from the airport tomorrow, and she will be my house-guest for at least two of the next four weeks. Feel free to edit my draft as much as you like. I think I will copy this to my sandbox and play with it as I'm able. Great review, and great advice. Thanks again. Lightbreather (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)