Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban/Archive 9

New Background Section
I added a two-paragraph Background section to the article. This is the last version I came up with after working with User:StarryGrandma. Lightbreather (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It contained a lot of heavy POV pushing and information that was duplicated elsewhere in the article. I've moved duplicate sections from those areas into the background section. I also stripped away all of the exciting sensational stuff that make gun control arguments so interesting and kept it to a simple boring statement of facts. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have moved several pieces from elsewhere in the article into the background section, and I am coming to realize that the entire article reads like a huge background section. I'm not sure what to do about this. I like the general idea of a background section, but if it's redundant there is no point in having it. Iwould rather like to find a way to keep it for whatever that is worth, but I am having trouble seeing how a "background section" is supposed to be different from the lede. Can we get some opinions? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think most of Sue's edits were and some of her comments are a bit heavy-handed. Here are the versions side-by-side. The middle version is Sue's version - and the current version. (If anyone knows how to make the columns uniform widths, please feel free.)


 * The first source, the Pittsburgh Press article, says:
 * A campaign for curbs on assault weapons began in January 1989 after a deranged gunman with an AK-47 semiautomatic assault rifle opened fire on a Stockton, Calif., school yard at recess time, leaving five children dead and 30 wounded.


 * The second source, the Hartford (Conn.) Courant story, says:
 * The campaign to ban assault weapons began Jan. 17, 1989, after Patrick Purdy shot 34 children and a teacher in a Stockton, Calif., schoolyard, using a semiautomatic replica of an AK-47 assault rifle. Five children died.


 * The third source, Roth and Koper's "Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994" says:
 * Nonetheless, the involvement of assault weapons in a number of mass murder incidents such as those discussed above provided an important impetus to the movement to ban assault weapons. Commenting on Patrick Purdy's murder of five children with an AK-47 rifle in Stockton, California in 1989, one observer noted, "The crime was to raise renewed outcries against the availability of exotic military-style weapons in our society. This time police forces joined forces with those who have traditionally opposed the widespread ownership of guns"'' (Cox Newspapers 1989, p.i). Later that year, California became the first state in the nation to enact an assault weapons ban, and the federal government enacted a ban on the importation of several foreign military-style rifles.

'' This is NPOV and factual. The Stockton shooting was the catalyst for Bush's ban on the importation of foreign "assault weapons" and for the federal assault weapons ban.

I, too, look forward to some opinions. I hope to get some support for the third, compromise/tweaked version.

--Lightbreather (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither of those articles is very factual. Purdy used an SKS, not an AK-47:
 * "at least one gun that was banned by the old law may not be prohibited by the new law, because it lacks a pistol grip: the SKS semiautomatic rifle, which a man named Patrick Purdy used to kill five children and wound 29 other students and a teacher in a Stockton schoolyard in 1989." --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mike. I sincerely appreciate the feedback. Please don't read any tone into this, it's just a simple request for clarification, as I'm not sure I understand your post. Do you want me to add the source you've provided somewhere? The only fact I'm trying to document here is that a preponderance of reliable, verifiable sources say that the Stockton shooting was the impetus for a federal ban - not the details of the shooting itself. That is to say, there had been talk of such a ban at various levels of government for some time, but the Stockton shooting electrified the public brought the debate to the forefront among different entities, including Congress. Lightbreather (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. It definitely was the catalyst that enabled the Roberti-Roos law to pass in the California Legislature that year (I was stationed at Camp Pendleton when the shooting occured) I was just pointing out that the rifle was repeatedly misidentified as an AK-47 (or Norinco Type 56) when in fact it was a Chinese SKS.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I agree that the sources differ in how they describe Purdy's rifle. Of the six sources I have bundled right now, only two mention it: one says "an AK-47 semiautomatic assault rifle" and the other says "a semiautomatic replica of an AK-47 assault rifle." Lightbreather (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that discussing a tragedy that occurred 4-5 years before is off topic, POV and should stay out. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, esteemed colleague, North, my friend. I hear you, and I understand your concern. If the article were to mention all traffic accidents in the years leading up to passage of AWB 1994, that would be off topic. If it were to provide the details of all the mass shootings with what would come to be called (wisely or not) "assault weapons," that would be undue weight. Even though many sources do give details about the other shootings, I am willing, for the sake of compromise and WP:UNDUE (which would therefore be, by some editors' reckoning, POV pushing) - I am willing to leave those other shootings out of this article. But one thing the sources do agree on, and cite even when they cite no others, is that the Stockton schoolyard shooting was the turning point in placing an AWB in the minds of the people, Congress, and even the sitting and a few former U.S. presidents. So presenting the basic facts about that shooting is relevant and not POV pushing. In fact, to not include at least that one, pivotal shooting would keep this article in the incomplete state that it is currently in.
 * This has been discussed before, in great detail, but also at a time when relations on this article were strained and stressed by other topics. On September 30, one editor 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?
 * A second editor replied that 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.
 * (I am not giving names because I'm trying to keep it on content, not people. Please, if you do go back to read those old discussions, try to read them without letting old feelings get in the way. That's what I try to do, though my heart pounds in my chest when I remember how alone I felt. Please, look for what was good and valid in what was discussed.)
 * In fact, an Origins of the ban section was added back then, but lost in a rollback on Oct. 1. On Oct. 3, a third editor wrote:
 * I'm in favor of restoring this [Origins] section, but to the version after I did some minor NPOV editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&direction=next&oldid=575230574 I believe it could also stand to have the first graf elided as it is redundant. [The Origins section is] well-written, stating the basic history leading up to the ban, though it's hard to determine emphatically that the Stockton shooting was the proximate beginning of that history.
 * Since that time, I have found dozens more reliable verifiable sources that name the Stockton shooting as the main impetus for the AWB. I have let five months pass since then to allow feelings about this article cool down, but I would like to now resume making the article a little more complete by adding this Background section, which is brief, relevant and not POV. Lightbreather (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And there are a lot of sources that say that the cause is a ongoing effort by committed anti-gun people, and that such events are merely things which they try to capitalize on / utilize.  And so the background would be an analysis of who was pushing this and their backgrounds regarding this issue.  I think that it would be better to have straightforward coverage of the topic rather than get into POV selections of the "reason" for it. And if we go to the latter, we should cover the various prominent POV's, not just one.   North8000  (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The version that third editor created (link above) has a brief (one sentence) paragraph that it (the AWB) was opposed by the NRA. I suggest that, after I add the section back, you add a sentence or two to that paragraph using the most neutral language you can with the best sources you can provide (as I've done)... I am inviting you to work with me on this, North. Lightbreather (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The current one doesn't look too bad from a POV standpoint, but I think that it scrambles some things by conflating the import ban with this law, and I think it also has technical errors wherever it uses "semi-automatic" as the only qualifier/adjective.  North8000  (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought a "background" section would add to the article, and wanted to keep it. However North has made some very important points, and I am now of the opinion that such a section, in it's present form, amounts to POV pushing as the "cause" of the ban. This raises a fair number of problems which North has gone over, and I won't bother repeating. Also, the majority of the material is duplicated elsewhere anyway. I don't think a "background" section is beneficial to the article (which has been stable now for a while) if, POV issues aside, it is going to amount to little more than a second lede. As there is no consensus to add the section, I have removed it, pending such a consensus. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * North first said that "discussing a tragedy that occurred 4-5 years before is off topic," but I explained that it is not off topic, providing sources that prove it. I restored a tweaked version, based on a version that was supported five months ago, but never added because there was a lot of friction among editors at that time re: other issues. I also invited North to work with me to tweak any issues he might have, to which he replied that it doesn't look too bad, and offered a couple areas he'd like to address. Please let me and North go through the process - and work with us, if you wish. Please don't just delete the section. Lightbreather (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * North8000, since the import ban was already mentioned briefly as a sort of footnote to the banned weapons table in the Criteria section, I will move all mention of that ban to that section for now, to address your concern that some might confuse that ban with the AWB. Lightbreather (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I usually speak very directly, so "doesn't look too bad" was my exact thought. Besides the technical errors, the "not too bad" was because while taken literally it only noted that efforts intensified after the tragedy, rather than claiming that tragedy was a driving force. But I still a skeptical about grouping the AWB discussioons with a tragedy that happened 4 years before, thus implying cause and effect.  But now, with the section being back it, it also has the significant technical errors.  Just for future info when looking at such things, saying "semi-automatic" covers about 1/2 of all firearms.  North8000  (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, North. I have edited the section for the two concerns you mentioned. I moved the Bush import ban to after the banned weapons table in the Criteria (next) section, and I further qualified the terms "semiautomatic assault weapon" and "large capacity ammunition feeding device" - leaving further elaboration also for the Criteria section. Lightbreather (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, North: I was pro-active and added three sources to back up the fact that reliable, verifiable sources agree that the Stockton schoolyard shooting was the turning point in the AWB debate of the early 1990's. I included quotes, too, though I did not add them to the article text. I hope that this will help to mitigate any future (let's hope not) debate among other editors re: its inclusion. I also bundled four of the sources, so as not to mar the article's readability. I based these edits on the example of the "cosmetic" debate, and how we ultimately handled the inclusion of those multiple, debated sources. (Don't want to start that again; just want to explain my action on this.) Lightbreather (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I am very strongly opposed to having a second lede in the article. I have no problem with a bulleted list of facts. I think that could be helpful. But several paragraphs of POV "This is what the ban was all about" does nothing to improve the article, and in fact damages the article. (An article that has been stable for a while now) If a single editor is going to insist on what amounts to a second lede, then I will call for outside opinions so that a consensus can be formed. I am NOT going through six months of this again. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Sue, drop the stick. Although I do have some issues with particular bits of LB's addition, in concept it is needed and appropriate. Having a section of the background is not a second lede. The lede summarizes the entire article. Saying some of the history that many reliable sources say led to the bill is an entirely appropriate part of the article. (Although as said, I do have reservations about particular bits that will need to be improved/balanced). While LB is taking the initiative to write a section, other editors have weighed in, discussing the content - you are the only one unilaterally removing content. this has become a clear pattern for you, and you need to stop. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no need for such edgy language. I'm not "unilaterally removing content", I am simply saying that I think the section would be better expressed as a bulleted list of facts. Why? Because I think the present proposal is not encyclopedic, and will simply generate 6-12 months of back and forth, wasting everyone's time. However, since I seem to be the only one of that particular opinion, I will sit back and watch what happens. If it looks like the section isn't going to be working in prose form, I will re-suggest a bulleted list. Perhaps at that time the idea will sway more editors. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation
There is an RfC in which the participation of editors/watchers of this article would be greatly appreciated: Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * RfC: Is "Assault weapons ban" an appropriate title for this article?

Including contentious material
Before we get too many reverts, I think we should have some sort of discussion about whether or not the material adds encyclopedic information to the article, or simply adds confusion and POV. Since it's introduction, it has only seemed to bring instability to an otherwise stable artcle. (Read above) It is for the most part the creation of a single editor who has been topic banned, although additional work was added by a second editor...who has also been topic banned. I do not advocate simply removing the material, and never did. Instead, I think the contentious elements should simply be held off until such time as we can put our heads together and do a rewrite. Presumably, as responsible Wikipedians, we can collaborate here and produce a worthy piece that is encyclopedic and pushes no particular point of view. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Main image
by the way, once the image that Sue uploaded is transferred to Commons, it should work properly and finally display the caption. We need to find an Admin with File mover rights to make the change. I wish we had a better focused version. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Efforts to renew section
why was the Carolyn McCarthy content removed? Seems like reasonable and decently sourced material, no? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Some of it seemed reasonable/due, and some of it seemed undue. As for the sourcing, not the best, IMO. I think mentioning that at some point the proposal went from a two-feature to a one-feature test is very important, but I need to double check the sources. Give me 30 minutes? Lightbreather (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, no worries, I'm about to start my work day any way, no rush. I just figured that a politician that put that much effort into a renewal was worthy of mention. I trust your judgement as to what to add back. Thanks, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll preserve what was removed here for ease of discussion. Lightbreather (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

First, the sentence about poet Casteen's opinion is completely undue. As is the Camp Perry rifle match bit. Everything else is ostensibly sourced to the bills themselves, but how much of that is due? I'm going to mull it over some more and look at other sources on the topic - hopefully a neutral one already in the article. Lightbreather (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph in question
In 2003, 2005, and 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy, Democrat of New York, introduced a bill that would have renewed the assault weapons ban for an additional ten years, and would have revised the definition of 'semiautomatic assault weapon' to include any gun with a detachable magazine and only ONE or more of the listed features. The proposed act would ban 65 models of firearms, as opposed to the 19 models banned under the earlier law. In addition, McCarthy's law would ban any semiautomatic rifle, shotgun, or handgun that was "originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General." However, the bill also included language that stated "a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event" - possibly an attempt to rebut those that would argue that several of the firearms proposed to be banned are used in the national rifle matches held at Camp Perry each year. Writing for Slate magazine, poet John T. Casteen IV, son of Virginia Tech president John Casteen, criticized the bill as having "no effect on gun violence" and as distracting from more efficient legislation that would block the gun show loophole. The bill never left committee.


 * I agree on the Casteen quote (remove it), the Camp Perry part is pushing the envelope a bit, plus it's not sourced, it appears to be speculation. Maybe just end that sentence at "...sporting event". --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 10:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-automatic weapons

 * 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.

Most guns sold in America are "semi-automatic weapons". This quote ain't about assault weapons no matter how they're defined. Just because an advocate tosses out a red-herring doesn't mean we've gotta jump at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felsic (talk • contribs) 16:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090228133334/http://www.c-span.org:80/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15821 to http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15821

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Studies on effects of the legislation: Dube

 * A study conducted by Dube in 2013, showed that the FAWB had a significant impact on crime in Mexico and that with the expiration of the FAWB in 2004, gun-related homicides increased significantly in areas bordering the U.S.

Hello! I was curious, so I looked through the paper sourced. This sentence is highly misleading, for while it accurately reports the first hypotheses tested,


 * Hypothesis 1. The 2004 expiration of the U.S. FAWB led to a rise in homicides in Mexico, over the 2002–2006 period.

it fails to include the second and third:


 * ''Hypothesis 2. The 1994 passage of the U.S. FAWB led to relatively small homicide changes over 1992–1996, when electoral competition was low.
 * Hypothesis 3. The expiration of the U.S. FAWB led to relatively larger homicide increases among Mexican municipios that had become more electorally competitive prior to 2004.

All of those were found to be significant, but I'd venture to say it's fairly obvious that only including the first while leaving out the others is a liiiiittle bit of an interesting choice.

And looking through the paper we get such gems as this:


 * The null effect in Table 5 supports Hypothesis 2: reduced gun availability did not diminish violence in the two years after 1994, since this was a low-competition period when informal agreements between drug traffickers and PRI mayors limited the extent of fighting among DTOs, and between DTOs and the state.

Reading through the entirety of this study, I implemented an alternative that actually represented the paper's findings:


 * ''A study conducted by Dube in 2013, showed that the passing of the FAWB in 1994 had an insignificant impact on violent crime in Mexico, while the expiration of the FAWB in 2004 combined with political instability was correlated with an increase in gun-related homicides among Mexican municipalities near the border."

There are some other concerns I have with some assumptions of the paper as well, but I'll leave the OR out of this. Also, that was a lot of freaking work for one sentence. :P Eleutheria Sleuth (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Small revert to effectiveness in section header
A quick look to google for definitions gets us:


 * effectiveness: the degree to which something is successful in producing a desired result; success.

vs.


 * effect: a change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.

a small but poignant distinction. Considering there are quite a few examples (for starters, literally the next sentence after the heading) of there being no effect, I have reverted 's edit to the original wording, as 'Studies on effects of the legislation or lack thereof' seemed a bit too wordy.

I assume that this will be non controversial. If viewed as a frivolous and unimportant distinction, it would follow that as effectiveness is only an extra 7 characters, there is no real reason to not use it, either. Eleutheria Sleuth (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah dang, just saw Lightbreather was banned. Well if anyone else wants to jump on and discuss it, feel free. Eleutheria Sleuth (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Requesting change to the "studies on effects of legislation" section
The "studies of effects of legislation" section states from Arindrajit Dube, Oeindrila Dube, and Omar Garcia-Ponce (2013) in the American Political Science Review that lifting the assault weapons ban increased homicides in Mexico by 60 percent. The problem with this is that while gun control advocates constantly state that 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico come from the US, William Hoover and Anthony Placido from the ATF only claims that the 90 percent clam only applies to the guns sent back to the ATF for tracing as mentioned here: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/

While more reliable sources state that 50 percent of all the guns seized in Mexico come from the US, the idea that homicides in Mexico would jump 60 percent is just too suspicious. Mainly because the Mexican drug cartels have a variety of sources from Central America to get their guns as mentioned here: https://www.unodc.org/documents/toc/Reports/TOCTASouthAmerica/English/TOCTA_CACaribb_firearmssmuggling_within_CAmerica.pdf

Even if 50 percent of the guns come from the united states, it's worth mentioning that the United States has better law enforcement and legislation toward stopping weapons trafficking which increases the cost of the weapons being shipped into Mexico because of the risk. When the Mexican drug cartel relied on weapons trafficking from central America, they were able to get their weapons from sources that simply impossible for law enforcement to trace due to the government corruption and weak police activity that central American countries suffer from. This is really more or less a theory I have, but I feel that the assault weapons ban only encouraged the Mexican drug cartels to get their guns from untraceable sources at the cost taking longer to reach Mexico. If you ask me, the only reason the drug cartels buy 50 percent of the weapons used in Mexico is because the United States is the closest source, but it's harder because of increased police activity the United States has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 01:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

AWB sunset and Mex Drug War: correlation not causation - The murder rate in Mexico surged because President Felippe Calderon militarized the Mexican War on Drugs in 2006, called in the Army, and destabilized the balance of power between the cartels, resulting in a free-for all between fragments of gangs. (E.g., Los Zetas the ex-special forces who were the ultra-violent security arm of one cartel became the leaders after the more business-like heads were removed.) The 60 percent surge in Mexican deaths after repeal of the AWB is coorrelation. The cause was the militarization of the Mexican War on Drugs. Since most of the deaths were people involved in the drug cartels (often gang-on-gang territory disputes), from 2006 to 2008 Mexican President Calderon and US President Bush saw the tens of thousands of deaths as evidence of winning the War on Drugs. After the administration change, and the Obama Administration wanted to declare a War on Guns, the tune and words of the song changed. This is not just confusing correlation with causation: it is using a correlation to push an aggenda based on blind faith in gun control. --Naaman Brown (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I see the study is still reported in the article. which it should be. It's crazy for anonymous editors on Wikipedia to dismiss academic studies published in prestigious journals because they say they aren't satisfied by the methodology or conclusion, and to further insult the scholars involved by claiming they're only motivated by political bias. Felsic2 (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced material
The entire section entitled "Provisions of the ban" was unsourced and has been for years. (It's been tagged as reference-improvements needed for 18+ months). The only citation in the entire section is to a single sentence in the section, with the cite pointing to "H.R. 4296 (103rd)" &mdash; not a good cite, as we should be citing to a reliable secondary source or to the final legislation (i.e., the United States Statutes at Large, which lists the final version of legislation, not just House bills which may or may not reflect the actual bill), and in any case we should refer to specific sections of legislation where possible.

Legislation is not "self-sourcing" and there is no exception to the ordinary WP:V and WP:RS requirements for legislative summaries. Before restoring, we need to have specific, inline references (WP:BURDEN). This should not be hard; there is an abundance of sources. Neutralitytalk 15:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I've added some sources now (via a Congressional Research Service report). Neutralitytalk 15:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Legislation is a reliable, verifiable primary source about what the legislation states. In Wikipedia primary sources are allowed, provided they're not analysed or interpreted by the editors. Simple summary is not WP:OR.GliderMaven (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There was no inline citation for any of that material (prior to my adding citations and re-doing the section). Even when citing to a primary source is OK, we actually need to cite to the source, including specific sections of the legislation. In other words, this material is not "self-sourcing" - editors cannot simply add or restore unsourced content just because reference material is out there somewhere.
 * I'd also add that using primary sources also presents the danger of cherry-picking, in that editors will summarize what they think is important, as opposed to what the reliable sources identify as the most important aspects. This particular concern isn't present here, but it's one more reason to be very, very wary of primary sourcing on matters such as this. Neutralitytalk 05:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131010231937/http://www.vpc.org/press/0409aw.htm to http://www.vpc.org/press/0409aw.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggesting Edit of Legal Challenges
There is one statement in this article, under "Legal Challenges" which says:

"Since its expiration in 2004 there has been debate on how it would fare in light of cases decided in following years, especially District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)."

This comment miscommunicates the legal state of the ban - DC v Heller is quite explicit that bans of specific "dangerous or unusual" weapons are fully legal, and other assault weapons bans - and even a further portion of the DC handgun law - have been upheld under that decision.

In fact, this comment seems to be specifically worded to be *technically* valid while communicating a more hostile legal situation than actually exists. It doesn't suggest what kind of debate there is, and only lists one semi-dated opinion article as a source for the debate, which seems specious at best.

It seems like this should either be expanded to detail the specifics of the legal debate, or removed entirely. In its current form, it is misleading. LocketRauncher (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Unreferences
This text is unreference "Most studies have shown the ban had little overall effect on criminal activity." And seriously in research it is not simple counting the number of "studies". Ordered newer studies first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * One could probably summarize it as "While older research found unclear effects of the ban more recent studies support a decrease in mass shootings." Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It was and still is the lead sentience for the section. As such it doesn't need it's own reference. Springee (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it needs a reference. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. It summarizes what the material that follows demonstrates. Your suggested version bears no relationship to the original; it's not an acceptable substitute. Anastrophe (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your change that restricts the material to only a subset of what has been studied. That's not cricket. As worded, it is factually correct, and that is borne out by the cited material that follows. Anastrophe (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

So long as we are talking, please don't put mass shootings ahead of the overall impact. Overall impact had been discussed more and is a larger picture item. Additionally, the article was previously on that order and you haven't justified why it should change. I'm ok with putting newest studies first in each section vs the original chronological order. Finally, do not remove Dr Lott's references. Lott it's an acknowledged expert in the field. Springee (talk) 11:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Should be ordered by most recent first. Lott is a popular press book. It is not published as "research" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with newest first in each category. I also don't see a need to put mass shootings as a subsection to violence.  However mass shootings is a subset of violence so the consensus order should remain.  Lott is an expert in the field and his work is referenced by others.  For example, when Rand looked at the issue in early 2018 Lott's work was one of the sources they reviewed.[] [].  Also worth noting that Rand's conclusion was that evidence for both violence overall and mass shootings as a subset was inconclusive.  With the addition of the 2019 study I'm OK saying a correlation has been shown.  Springee (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Should be ordered by most recent first." Can you point me to a WP rule or guideline that says this? I've never heard of a requirement that sourced material be ordered the opposite of chronologically - or by any order in particular. "Lott is a popular press book. It is not published as "research"". So what? Anastrophe (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * With respect to Lott we call it "research" twice. Changed it to book. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Reverted. Mr. Lott is a researcher. It's not an honorific. He's published numerous studies; some of these studies are published in the book cited. Anastrophe (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure than lets cite the actual research or secondary reviews of that research not the popular press publication. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any WP policies that support your contentions of what should/should not be cited. Please elucidate. Anastrophe (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of reverse chronological order
Editor Doc James has repeatedly pushed the more recent studies regarding mass shootings ahead of the numerous studies that precede it that studied both mass shootings and the overall effects of the ban. The argument seemingly tendered is that 'newer stuff goes first'. This makes no sense to me, and goes against the more logical chronological order. Just because a study is 'newer' doesn't mean that its finding supercede, or negate, previous findings, particularly when the object of the study doesn't map 1:1 to the object of previous studies (an effect on mass shootings does not supercede or negate a finding regarding the overall effect of the ban on violent crime). I believe the listing of the studies should be in chronological order, and this is generally supported by WP style guidelines Stand-alone_lists. Anastrophe (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Anastrophe when it comes to research more recent conclusions generally take preference. Also why do you insist upon using capital letters for "Mass Shootings"? Also the term "increased significantly" has various meanings and thus should not generally be used. Increased is sufficient. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * More recent research regarding different aspects of the subject matter than the previous research investigated does not 'take preference'. If they were studying identical aspects, sure. That's not the case here. For example, an older study of the acute characteristics of a pathogen vs recent discoveries of chronic characteristics doesn't make the older study less valid, less relevant, or less important. The acute characteristic might lead to rapid mortality; the chronic characteristic may be a manageable risk. Both results are valid. Recentism isn't an overriding function.
 * "Why do [you] insist" - please be more careful in your attributions. I haven't edited the title of the Mass shooting sections. I did a simple revert of your edit.
 * significantly can indeed be interpreted in various ways. We can also apply the "reasonable person" test. If the price of an "assault weapon" increased from $1000 to $1030, nobody would argue that the price hasn't increased. If the price of an "assault weapon" increased from $1000 to $1500, few would argue that the price has not increased significantly; a 50% increase in price fails at attempts to minimize it. The study found 47% increases in prices. 'Significant' is the appropriate characterization. Anastrophe (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Best to just state the percentage increase. 47% is not that great. Meds increase in price 4000%
 * Yes if you restore all caps than yes you did it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to "Mass Shooting" vs "Mass shooting" that was my edit and I'm fine with using sentence vs title type capitalization. The "significant" increase would depend.  In normal context "significant" can either refer to a judgement call or a statistical definition.  The statistical definition, which is perhaps what you are alluding to, would only require that a before/after analysis of the data shows that they can be shown to be statistically different.  It doesn't need to be a large (subjective) difference.  Thus a 2% increase in prices could indicate a statistically significant change.  Conversely a 50% increase might not.  It would depend on the data.  Conversely, "significant" could be a judgement call.  How much does the price of gas have to go up before you change your behavior.  A 2% increase in the price of a car I am considering might not change my purchase.  A 50% increase almost certainly would.  But that is now a value judgement vs a statistical difference.  So perhaps the best way to handle this is to follow the source.  So long as the claim is attributed to a source we don't have to decide if the difference was statistically significant, perceived as significant or both.  If there is confusion a quote can be added to the citation to make it clear this is attributed to the source.  Springee (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've not read any of the changes and I'm not familiar with either of the two editors, so here are my two cents which are entirely divorced from the gun politics dispute: (1) meta-analyses and authoritative literature reviews go first, (2) preferably, studies about a similar issue (e.g. studies of the economic effect of FAWB, the effect on Mexico, effect on the suicide rate) go into one paragraph, and (3) newer studies go first. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

How to summarize the literature?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How to summarize the literature? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC) "While older studies have shown the ban had little effect on criminal activity newer studies have found a decrease in mass shootings.
 * Option 1

"Most studies have shown the ban had little effect on criminal activity."
 * Option 2

<>
 * Option 3

Support option 1

 * Support as creator of the RfC. What we see is that the studies from the last 5 years have shown benefit with respect to mass shooting. Agree some of the ones before that did not. A pubmed search finds two studies on the topic both of which support a decrease. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Support option 2
*Support Option one expects us to accept that Mass shootings are the only metric of the efficacy of the ban. This is false. Mass shootings are a subset of criminal violence. Mass shootings account for a barely perceptible rate of death/100k annually. As such, the datasets are vanishingly small; add to that the exceptionally random nature of the events, as opposed to the fairly steady rates of criminal homicides in general, plus only a few studies suggesting that incidents of an extremely rare and random event statistically 'declined' during the AWB, misrepresents the entirety of the data presented. The AWB had no effect on homicide or violent crime rates, in the main. That is what the information in the section shows, and what research has borne out.
 * I am troubled that the author of this rfc has chosen to list the sources for his preferred choice, but ignores the larger body of sources that are supported by option two, leaving it blank as if to suggest that there are no sources in support of it. I would suggest that user Doc James remove his sources, as it would be less effort than adding the additional cites, and provides a less tilted presentation. Anastrophe (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not see a source for "Most studies have shown the ban had little effect on criminal activity." If you have one please provide it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The ability to review the extant studies in the literature and see an absence of studies that support a different conclusion doesn't require a citation. The existence of cited studies that show little effect on criminal activity, absent any studies that show significant effect on criminal activity, is entirely adequate to support the claim, which is entirely accurate.Anastrophe (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Support option 3

 * Support Little interest apparently in this matter. As such, I recommend the third path, leave out any characterizations/summary of the information presented. This also requires appropriate attention to WP:UNDUE - more recent studies of a subset of violent crime do not supercede or negate the findings of older studies focused on the overall effect on violent crime - the originally proposed wording presents an unacceptable false equivalence, and is WP:UNDUE in its characterization. Anastrophe (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support: Absent an agreed summary I think none is an acceptable alternative. If we go this route then we should avoid summaries in places like the lead of this document or in documents such as Assault Weapon article which references this article.  Springee (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. We should find a source summarizing the literature and not summarize ourselves based on individual papers. The individual findings could be covered in the article in an attributed fashion. Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – Until there is an RS that explicitly says "While older studies have shown the ban had little effect on criminal activity newer studies have found a decrease in mass shootings." Otherwise, comparing new studies to older studies and stating our conclusions seems like WP:SYNTH. I agree with the conclusion, but I think we need an RS that states it explicitly, and until then, we shouldn't compare/contrast older and newer studies. Leviv&thinsp;ich 17:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Second preferred option Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
Feel free to add further options. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

None of the above as written: I'm not really OK with either option. Option 1 isn't a summary of the section. As a summary it doesn't need citations (the citations should be part of the body of the section) and including a few is UNDUE with respect to the total body of work on the subject. Also, we should use proper language. "Little effect" and "support a decrease" aren't accurate summaries. None of these studies show a causal relationship so we should make it clear this is a correlation affect. The studies on overall crime impact don't show a significant statistical correlation. When considering the subset of crime, mass shootings (and we should be clear if this is number of victims or number of incidents) studies have shown a correlation (though the 2018 Rand review of the studies resulted in an inconclusive result []. It is significant that Rand didn't include some of the studies we did.  Certainly the newer studies couldn't have been included but the older studies appear to have failed Rand's inclusion criteria.  That in itself is significant.  Also, just because a study is newer doesn't mean we should assume it supersedes the results of the previous study.  Such an assumption would have to be supported by a RS.  In conclusion, the summary shouldn't have citations or references to any specific study, they go in the body.  The evidence is inconclusive as to a correlation between the crime in general and the 1994 law. There is evidence of a correlation between the 1994 law and a reduction in mass shootings (need to specify if this is total number or rate and if this is number of victims or number of incidents). Springee (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Additional comment, reference #3 doesn't support the conclusion above. The study groups "assault weapons" and weapons with high capacity magazines (more than 10 rounds per most laws). What it concludes is that more crimes are using weapons and/or magazines that were prohibited under the 1994 law. However, it doesn't look at a correlation between mass shootings and the sunset of the 1994 law. It obliquely tries to suggest that the fact that high capacity magazines are more common makes shootings more deadly but only through suggestion, not statistics. Having speed read the paper I see some issues with their methods but that's neither here nor there. The bigger issue is it doesn't support the conclusion for which it is being cited above. One of the things that should make the Rand study rather significant is they established some criteria for what sort of study would support a correlation conclusion. While their conclusion is a year old its important that they view the studies as ultimately inconclusive. Springee (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quote from JAMA Internal Medicine review
"Koper and Roth23 compared prelegislation and postlegislation firearm homicide rates and found a 6.7% reduction, which was not statistically significant"

Not really "no difference" just a non significant difference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was replying to this by I will skip my addition to the talk page and reply here. First, you didn't cite Koper and Roth, rather the 2017 Lee article.  With respect to assault weapons, Lee et al concluded, "Specific laws directed at firearm trafficking, improving child safety, or the banning of military-style assault weapons were not associated with changes in firearm homicide rates."  Also, including the percentage reported by Koper with the comment that it wasn't statistically significant can be seen as misleading.  What readers may not realize is that the 6.7% may include quite a bit of error/noise and thus the "no statistical difference" is the critical part.  Also, since the 6.7% came from Koper, not Lee it should have been cited to Koper 2001, not the more recent paper.  If we are going to cite the more recent paper we should make sure our content is aligned with the conclusions of the 2017 paper. Springee (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually the generally recommendation is to use high quality secondary sources per WP:MEDRS, JAMA Internal Medicine is definitely one of those. The best part to summarize is probably "Limited data from 4 studies on the effects of the federal assault weapons ban (in effect from 1994 to 2004) do not provide evidence that the ban was associated with a significant decrease in firearm homicides." though. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

, this edit is wrong []. The 2017 paper did not conclude there was a 6.7% reduction in homicides related to the 1994 law. The 6.7% came from Lee et al quoting a 2001 Koper article. The way you have quoted the text is very misleading. That would be like taking an article that discusses one of Trump's many false statements and then saying, "The NY Times discussed the fake news emanating from CNN". Since we already cite the Koper paper you should cite Koper when discussing specific findings while only citing Lee for Lee's conclusions. Beyond that I still object to the inclusion of the 6.7% since the authors found the difference wasn't statistically significant. You also shouldn't have restored the off subject sentence about firearms laws in general. I objected to that sentence as well (off topic and coatrack). I will ask that you revert yourself per BRD. Springee (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

correctly points out [] that the decrease in deaths added with this edit [] isn't all homicides, only firearms homicides. Springee (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes good point, only firearm related homicide. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Impact factor of 0.5
This source has a very low impact factor of 0.5

Makes it not a very good source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * JAMA Internal Medicine by contrast has an impact factor of more than 20. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Why would we remove this just because the impact factor is lower? It's not a medical journal so in general I would expect a lower impact factor.  However, these statistics also aren't medical any more than they are economics.  Unless there is a problem with the method or conclusion no, keep the source.  Springee (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Follow up, when I first read this I saw "5" not "0.5". 0.5 is low but again, we should be careful about comparing good impact factors across disciplines.  For example, IJR is one of the most prestigious journals in my area of research.  It has an impact factor of ~ 4. Springee (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia policy that states at what threshhold of "Impact factor" a source becomes "not a very good source"? Anastrophe (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Journals with an impact factor of less than one are generally suspect.
 * I would suggest we replace the first paragraph with " A 2017 review found that the ban does not appear to have had a significant effect on homicides related to firearms. " Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No objections here. Springee (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Will wait for others to weight in. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

"Journals with an impact factor of less than one are generally suspect." Can you point me to the policy please? Anastrophe (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "There is no magic number for impact factor, but it is useful to compare your target journal's impact factor to others' in its field of study."
 * We have a journal with an impact factor of more than 20 and one at 0.5. Better to go with the more than 20 one obviously. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say it's obvious. They're from two entirely different disciplines. See the 'magic number' portion of what you quoted. "The average impact factor for fields such as mathematics, history, and education is around 0.5". Does that mean that mathematics, history, or education sources are generally junk? Not at all. Anastrophe (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Which two sources are we deciding on based on impact factor? If we are discussing the 2014 vs 2017 review articles for the intro paragraph I think we should keep both and note that both reviews reached the same conclusion. If there are detailed differences in the conclusions we can discuss those as well. Springee (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The other issue is that this is a primary source not a review. Basically we have one older primary source with a low impact factor and one newer review article with a high impact factor. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It being a primary source is more problematic than its age; the AWB ended just about fifteen years ago, so naturally the bulk of analysis is 'older'.Anastrophe (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of the 2017 review paper being the first one mentioned. It's good since it is a summary of literature.  However, I see no justifiable reason to remove the 2014 paper, we just don't need to use it as the overall summary.  It's not like we have a disagreement between these sources.  Springee (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

How would the editors here feel about condensing much of the impact on violence section? It seems we are doing a short paragraph for each paper on the topic. With the 2017 and the earlier review papers can we just say something like reviews of the literature have found no statistical impact on crime/gun homicide/what ever specific claims are supported (citations). From there I think we could condense the discussion of the other papers. I'm not sure exactly how yet but the current text seems very disjointed. The goal would be to remove no references but make the whole subsection more readable with fewer repetitions of the same findings. This might move away from a strict timeline presentation but I think we could agree to that change in this case. Springee (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I could get behind this depending on how it is all summarized. Please post here any suggestions before making the update. Thanks!Terrorist96 (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Mother Jones Graph
I have concerns with the Mother Jones graph.
 * We quote numerous academic studies, but the graphic is from a media organization, with much less reliability than the studies, but the graphic is much more in readers faces. We should be graphically displaying the most reliable information.
 * The graphic, and the caption for the graphic, are inaccurate and misleadingly comparing numbers before and after 2013. The caption reads defined as 3+ people shot and killed in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at a public place, excluding gang-related killings) from 1982 to 2017, but if you read the MJ source, they call out Dating back to at least 2005, the FBI and leading criminologists essentially defined a mass shooting as a single attack in a public place in which four or more victims were killed. We adopted that baseline for fatalities when we gathered data in 2012 on three decades worth of cases. [...] In January 2013, a mandate for federal investigation of mass shootings authorized by President Barack Obama lowered that baseline to three or more victims killed. Accordingly, we include attacks dating from January 2013 in which three or more victims were killed. (Any analysis of the frequency of mass shootings should account for this.)
 * in the years 2013-2017 (as the graphic currently ends at 2017), there are 248 deaths listed, however if the consistent 4+ definition is used, there are 216, a 15% difference
 * The graphic is not updated for 2019. In the wider period of 2013-2019 (now), there are 309 4+ deaths and 363 3+ deaths, a 17% error  ResultingConstant (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The graphic is also unclear as to whether the fatalities were caused by firearms banned by the AWB. If there is a mass shooting with a handgun, is it being captured in the data? If so, that seems deceptive and disingenuous. The more appropriate data would solely capture deaths caused by weapons that were covered in the assault weapons ban. Benwetmore (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * They are included. Per the citation, up to 2012, of the 143 weapons tracked, 71 were handguns, 28 were rifles (of all types), etc. 2013+ numbers are not broken out by weapon type. Although the AWB did cover some "pistol" AWBs, it seems likely that most of handguns cataloged in the graph are not AWB pistols. However, going down that road to figure out which are which is too much WP:OR since the source did not do so (and didn't even do the handgun breakout in 2013+). But I agree that this complication even further reduces the suitability of this particular graph for this article. ResultingConstant (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You seem very confused. The point of the ban was to reduce the death rate in mass shootings, and subsequent analyses since it was lifted have suggested that it may have done that, and that's true even though the ban was deliberately hobbled by the NRA lobbying GliderMaven (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * A graph of deaths from banned weaponry might also be done, but that is not this graph. If you were to produce that graph, it could be included. Note that it's not OR to simply graph data, that comes under WP:CALC, it's only OR to draw original conclusions. GliderMaven (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You are correct, this graph is not a graph of weaponry covered by the ban - that would be a graph that would be relevant to this article. ResultingConstant (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

As an additional indicator of inapplicability of this graph to this article, in the 82-2012 period (in which MJ provides additional analysis), only 20 of the 143 weapons graphed were covered by the proposed 2013 AWB, and 42 of 143 used magazines that would have been covered, a total of 48 of the 143 were covered in some capacity, or only 1/3. In light of all of the issues with this graph on this article, and the WP:SILENCE of any objectors, I am removing the graph. ResultingConstant (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I am completely opposed to the removal of this graph, and have reinserted it pending further discussion. Mother Jones is a WP:RELIABLE source, and this is simple summary of their data. You don't get to raise this on the talk page and then unilaterally delete it with negligible chance for discussion. GliderMaven (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The graphic is misleading, as it changes criteria in 2013 with no indication. As the MJ source specifically discusses this problem, the graph is NOT a simple summary of their data. Further less than 1/3 of the data included in the graphic is relevant to the topic at hand (weapons that would have been covered by the 2013 AWB), the graph does not make sense in this article. A corrected and updated graph is appropriate in Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States where it already exists, and perhaps even Gun violence in the United States - although placement in the latter article might be compromised by the fact that the graph excludes the vast majority of gun deaths in the US) ResultingConstant (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This wasn't unilateral since Benwetmore was part of the discussion and RC waited a week after asking before removing. I support removal but don't feel strongly about it.  The data covers more that just "1994 Assault Weapons" and can imply false conclusions that the research discussed in the section doesn't support.  Springee (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a reference work, so graphs of data is to be expected. It is also very unclear what you mean by "false conclusions", what kind of 'false conclusions'??? GliderMaven (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * But that doesn't mean we use them indiscriminately. The topic of the section is did the 1994 AWB have a positive impact on violence?  The research suggests no.  That graph makes it look like yes since it shows an increase in violence after the ban was sunset.  Only if one looks at the details of the graph is it seen that these are not 1:1 events.  It might be more useful if the chart showed the change in shootings that occurred using weapons banned by the 1994 law.  It's possible (and I'm speculating for sake of argument) that the increase in mass shootings were committed by 1994 compliant firearms thus one could argue that the increase is independent of the sunset even though the graph suggests otherwise.  Anyway, the content of the graph and the topic are not apples to apples.  Since the graph specifically discusses mass shootings would we be OK moving it to that subsection?  While I think the graph could lead to a false conclusion, in the mass shooting section it would be topic appropriate.  Springee (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The reason it looks like it does is that the data is consistent with it making a significant difference. If you take the data up to the point that the ban was lifted, there was no solid evidence it did any good- although there was a slight downward trend, it wasn't large, and it was lifted on that basis. However the subsequent data since it was lifted is new information, and mass shootings subsequently exploded, and that began right around when the ban was lifted. This isn't my OR, this is broadly speaking the position that the literature has taken since a few years after the ban was lifted. GliderMaven (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The studies cited and the impression the graph make aren't well aligned. Part of the problem is correlation vs causation.  We don't know if the increase was caused by the sunsetting of the law or not.  We can't say which of those shootings would have occurred with 1994 legal guns vs what was actually used etc.  It's not a good graph if the intent is to really inform.  It's a good graph if the intent, as it likely is with MJ, is to excite.  Either way, I would support the removal but I'm not overly worried about it and won't do it myself.  Springee (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

A few questions for you. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is the citation for your graph the csv? the accompanying article, or both?
 * Where in the source is the 2004 ban discussed?
 * Where in the source is the 2004 ban's effect on number of deaths discussed?
 * The CSV changes criteria in 2013, and the article specifically says that any analysis should take this into account. Does your graph convey this in any way?
 * How do you justify showing 15% increase in deaths, which is attributable directly to the change in criteria, without distinguishing that in the graph?
 * The raw CSV, article, and article graphs distinguish the type of weapon, and explicitly call out that 2/3 (48/143) of the weapons involved were not assault weapons (as defined by the 2013 bill). Why did you exclude this information from the graph?


 * I produced the first versions of the chart from the Mother Jones source, using the csv, which then only covered it to 2012. You'd have to ask Nagualdesign how he handled 2013 onwards. GliderMaven (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * In general though, if you continue with this deletionist tack, I will simply request more assistance (in a neutral way) from other talk pages. I consider that it's very unlikely that most people would agree with the removal of this chart. It seems to me that you're trying to hide uncomfortable truths here rather than arguing from WP:NPOV. GliderMaven (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * GM, please AGF. RC's removal was perfectly reasonable.  They posted their intent and asked for feedback.  When they got no negative feedback they removed the graph.  They haven't reverted the restoration and they are politely discussing the topic here.


 * You raised NPOV. I don't believe it supports your claim.  Presenting a plot that doesn't reflect the findings of the sources in the section is a NPOV issue but not in favor of keeping the plot.  Also, if I understand what is being said here, this is not a plot from an article on the subject, rather it is one that a Wikipedia editor created from a data set and even worse, the data was changed part way through the plot.  That is an OR issue.  A plot in this section any plot in this section should be sourced to one of the studies in the section or an article on the subject else it's SYTH because it attempts to tie two things together in a way that isn't done by a RS.  Springee (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * If I've understood your argument correctly, you're trying to argue that it is OR for an editor to draw a graph of data and put it in an article. In reality that's routinely done, right across Wikipedia, every day, is not OR and is simply a presentation choice of reliable source material. GliderMaven (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I am asking policy based questions. You are responding with personal attacks. The policy based issues are potentially resolvable via some sort of modifications to the graph. Personal attacks will just result in sanctions. Would you like to try again? Regarding 2013+, the graph at the time you created it included 2016 data. In any case, as you are the one arguing for keeping the graph, I think the onus is still on you to answer policy based questions about it. Additionally, I note you did not answer the question on where the cite discusses the 1998 ban, and in particular the 1998 ban's effect on deaths.  ResultingConstant (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant. The other references link mass shootings to the FAB, this is a list of mass shootings, expressed as a graph. That makes it completely appropriate to be here. GliderMaven (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps I was not clear. The question regarding the 98 ban is in regards to the portion of the graph that highlights the 98 ban, when neither the csv, nor the related article mention the ban at all, its dates, or its effect on gun deaths. So adding that into the graph is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH ResultingConstant (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It appears the 3 vs 4 change was addressed. I think we should make it clear that this table includes all firearms types, not just those subject to the 1994 ban. This is not an endorsement of inclusion as I still have my OR/SYTH concerns in this context but this addition would make me feel better about the inclusion and would provide more information to the reader. Springee (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe attempted to fix the 3 vs 4 issue, but the version she uploaded was identical in content to the prior version. My guess is she just accidentally uploaded the wrong version. In the meantime, I will take that as a sign of willingness to try and address the issues in the graph. ResultingConstant (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you look here [] the file did change so I'm it's addressed. Do you think adding a statement that the graph shows "firearms of all types" or similar would make it more acceptable?  While I favor removal I think it would be more politic in this case to try to make it acceptable.  Springee (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see the new version now, it must have been a caching issue in my browser. Rather than "firearms of all types", I think a more explicit "including deaths from non-assault weapons" or something is clearer. A better long term alternative would be perhaps a stacked bar chart showing deaths involving an assault weapon, vs deaths not involving an assault weapon (the CSV includes this data already). The more immediate issue though is the highlighted area of the graph which is clear WP:SYNTH as the Mother Jones source does not discuss the 98 ban in any capacity. ResultingConstant (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no requirement that a graphic be attributable to only one source. WP:SYNTHesis occurs when something is attributable to no source. Everything in this article and diagram is, and you know that. With all due respect, you're simply being tendentious. The truth is, you're trying to delete this diagram for reasons other than the ones you are stating, and it won't work. GliderMaven (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You have not quoted synth correctly. WP:SYNTH Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources ResultingConstant (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * did you see the synth definition? ResultingConstant (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you? GliderMaven (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did, especially the part that said "Do not combine material from multiple sources". You are citing the graph to the MJ article. It does not mention the ban in any fashion. Other sources do make that claim. Combining those sources with the MJ data is textbook WP:SYNTH ResultingConstant (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

New Editor
Hi I'm CopperHelium and I've been assigned to help take care of and edit this page for the semester. I just want to say I'm looking forward to working with everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CopperHelium (talk • contribs) 00:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

No reduction in lethality of gun crime during ban.
As the NCJRS study noted: "there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury." This finding is not surprising given that all rifles of ANY type are used in less homicides than fists, blunt objects, and knives each year. This is a crucial finding and is desperately downplayed by proponents of an AWB. This should be mentioned in the lead.Abatementyogin (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It already is? The effects section is summarized as Studies have shown the ban has had little effect in overall criminal activity and firearm homicides, while there is tentative evidence that it decreases the frequency of mass shootings ResultingConstant (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the question is should that be included in the lead.[] I see nothing wrong with including it but I think the difference between including/excluding it from the lead is small.  Call that weak support for inclusion.  Springee (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Firearm homicide rates and the percentage of gun crime that is fatal are not the same thing.I tried including it but another user keeps removing it.172.58.120.165 (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Per that same paragraph, it is "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime". If the article specifically cautions against making definitive assessments, the lead shouldn't ignore this and imply it anyway. This is also one detail from a single WP:PRIMARY source from 2004. Emphasizing one detail while ignoring another is editorializing. If there is a reliable, secondary source which summarizes these findings that also mentions this detail, it can be used to explain this in the body, and then evaluated whether or not it belongs in the lead. Grayfell (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You're still going at it? That SAME paragraph mentions that the study found a decline with AWs used in the commission of a crime during the ban. So let me get this straight: it's ok to imply that the ban is what caused the decline in AWs used in crime, but it's premature to point out that there was literally no decline in how lethal gun crime was? Multiple studies have already found no effect. You damage-controlling this is hilarious. Also why did you follow me to the Swiss gun article?Abatementyogin (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Am I still going at this? You have been "going at this" since March, so... yeah. If you know of multiple, reliable studies, present them here, please. As I said, Wikipedia strongly prefers WP:SECONDARY sources to primary studies. There are many reasons for this. A book which mentions this study would be one example. A meta-analysis or similar would be another. Grayfell (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Multiple studies have found that the AWB had literally no impact on gun homicides, they are cited on this page. Ask yourself: do you really think there would be a reduction in lethality of gun crimes because a subset of guns that is responsible for less deaths than fists every year was banned? Gun homicides are overwhelmingly a handgun issue.208.54.40.250 (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)