Talk:Roberti–Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989

There is meaningful justification for critcism of the AWCA of 89'
I, along with thousands of pro-second Amendment citizens in CA feel in a way that the Roberti-Roos Act is infact very vague in it's idea of determining an "Assault Weapon". We all know by now the term "Assault Weapon" i.e. "Evil Black Gun" was coined by the media in an attempt to brand ARs that fire no different that a pistol would (Single-Shot), that they are "Semi-Automatic" and not Fully "Automatic", which is a message thats often intetionally mixed up by news Media, and made harder for citizens to understand the important values differences and scare viewers and law biding citizens. For example, most pistols already defined as CA "Legal" ARE infact "Semi-Automatic", just as a AR-15/M16 Rifle, and AK-47. So CA bans Semi-Auto Rifles (One Shot-per trigger pull), they would have to ban ALL pistols favored by citizens, collectors, Sportsman alike, for they are too Semi-Automatic. On another note; the perpetrator who carried out the 1989 Stockton shooting, bought his Chinese made AK at an Oregon gun store, not a CA store. His Taurus Pistol, was also Semi-Automatic. It would also to be fair to place some the blame on the Mental Hospital staff who deemed the Stockton shooter to be fit for release, when he clearly wasn't mentally fit for release into the public. As well as some blame on Oregon gun store owners for not enforcing slightly better methods to prevent Mentally unstable people, and people with long criminal records from buying guns of any kind from their stores. So in a nutshell, all abiding California citizens officially began losing their 2nd Amendment Rights in 1989, all beacuse of one bad guy with bad intentions.--Expertseeker90 (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed the section Criticisms of Roberti-Roos and similar bans (edit) from the article because it (and the above comment) consisted entirely of unsourced non-NPOV advocacy. Davemck (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"Ban" used by preponderance of WP:V WP:RS, has been the primary word used in article since 2009
keeps removing the word "ban" from this article. First he said it was a "vocabulary change for clarity and specificity." Then he changed some for "cleanup." On the talk page of a related article (Assault weapons bans in the U.S.), he claims the word "ban" is POV.

The fact is, it is the word used to describe this and other bans by a preponderance of WP:V WP:RS - and has been since 1989... 25 years. Further, it is the word that has been used most in this article since it was created in 2009... 5 years ago. It is the word used in most of the sources in this article. There is no good policy reason to scrub "ban" from this article or any other article about assault weapons bans. In fact, it is POV not to use the word used by the preponderance of reliable, verifiable sources.

Further, Scal has suggested that "ban" should be "paraphrased," and that it is plagiarism not to do so if the source uses/used "ban." Per WP:Plagiarism, common expressions and phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present information are NOT plagiarism.

Also, this is not a search engine optimization tactic, as he has also suggested. It is simply using the best word for the topic, per WP:BETTER advice to Be concise.

Finally, and most importantly, after 5 years of relative stability, Scal's 8 uses of "prohibit" (18 May 2014) is NO improvement over 7 uses of "ban" (20 May 2014) in this article. For these reasons, I am restoring the 20 May 2014 version. Lightbreather (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)