Talk:Assault weapon

Recent edits reducing this article

In a series of changes yesterday, anonymous editor 68.49.6.134 (talk · contribs) removed quite a bit of the contents of this article, reducing it from this to this. Refer to the article history page for more details, including the edit summaries, of which here is one example: "remove entire section - either unreferenced, or blatant synthesis of material to advance a point". I am starting this talk page section to encourage all interested editors to discuss these substantial changes, which reduced the article from about 2,600 words to about 500 words. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I can agree that the previous article was in need of a reworking, but I am not certain this is what it needed. This current version appears to be POV pushing. EricSerge (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this some more, there were also some edits done at that time that substantially changed the lead section of the article, such as this one. While some of the new material in the lead section provides helpful information about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 2004, I'm not convinced that removing the old lead paragraph is helpful. It had been developed over a pretty long series of back and forth edits, as a neutral but informative summary of the concept, which is by no means confined to the expired federal ban. We need to be particularly careful about this article in general, and the lead in particular, because this is a very controversial subject, and a lot of people will be referring to this article, especially when assault weapons are mentioned in the news, as shown rather dramatically here. I would encourage other editors to give their opinions in this talk page section. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The article in its current form is clearly biased and written in a pseudo-neutral tone from the viewpoint of someone who opposes a ban on assault weapons. The original article should be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.75.23.198 (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The current version has some issues and needs work, but the changes last summer got rid of an immense amount of problems, so it was far worse before then. This is a term with no real definition (unlike Assault rifle) and so is subject to ever-changing definitions depending on who is using the term for what purpose. For example, under the described expired federal law, pistols routinely carried by police were defined as assault weapons. The article must come to grips with the fact that this is a term with ever-changing meanings, not a class of firearms. Before it was fixed, it has severe problems in that area.North8000 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Assault weapons are back in the news, resulting once again in a large number of page views for this article. I still advocate more or less restoring the lead section to the way it was from mid-December 2008 to mid-July 2012. That was a much better summary of the subject -- easier to understand, and more neutrally worded, and without the current excessive emphasis on the details of the expired federal ban. One version of this can be seen here. I'm not saying it was perfect, but it's better than the way it is now. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure. For a term which has a newly invented meaning every time that it is used, it's certainly worth noting the most notable definition which was the expired federal law. Also the most common-meaning definition which is a synonym for assault rifle. The large block of material deleted two edits back did have some of the noted problems, but it also explained the attributes used in the most notable definition and their intended purposes. The first two phrases contained the definitions from two extremes, now someone just knocked out one of them creating a worse imbalance. But the version that you noted does look better in some respects. North8000 (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The version I linked to does specifically mention the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, in the first paragraph. And part of the problem, I think, is that "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" mean two different things, but are often confused with each other. (Assault weapons are semi-automatic firearms with certain features, and assault rifles are fully-automatic, or selective fire, firearms that are actually used by the military.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. But I think that it should do more than mention the federal law; it gives probably the most notable of all of the varying definitions. North8000 (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I started on an effort to wikify the "attribute" material. I also brought in the lead sentences from the version that you recommended. North8000 (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And as always, other editors are encouraged to give their opinions too. Again, this is a very controversial subject. It's important for the article to be as neutral and balanced as possible. And when the subject is more in the news, as it is now, there will tend to be more edits by anonymous or occasional editors who are pushing a particular point of view, so we need to watch out for that also. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I made an effort. That attributes section is still ragged, but I stripped out most of the commentary type wording, and made it a attributes section rather than in a "politics" section. North8000 (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't that section say something about the "shoulder-thing that goes up". I heard it was a motivation for the '94 ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:279:C91D:3CA5:3950:FF05 (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Assault weapons are not defined as being fully-automatic per federal law. To claim that they are is simply pushing a POV, trying to conflate full-auto machine guns with assault weapons. Hence the need for an NPOV warning to readers. Have tagged this article. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The point is that they have no specific definition. You are right about the definition under the expired federal law, and I agree that its definition should be included as one of the more prominent definitions. There is also a common meaning (be it right or wrong but certainly conflicting) that it includes full auto firearms. So there are numerous conflicting definitions and no consistent primary one. IMHO the article should convey this, and not state that there is A (singular) definition or meaning. Could you clarify what your thoughts are on this? North8000 (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there are specific definitions. Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers to firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon, under the sunset federal Assault Weapons Law, as well as under several still-existing state laws that were derived from the earlier federal ban. (Federal law required 2 such cosmetic features; some state laws now require only 1 such cosmetic feature to be defined as an assault weapon.) But, as you have worded the introduction now, a reader is erroneously led to believe an assault weapon is always nothing but a full-auto machine gun firing an intermediate cartridge, which it is not. This has the appearance of pushing a POV agenda on Wikipedia readers. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The lead paragraph of the article does convey that there are numerous conflicting definitions and no consistent primary one. Re "automatic", the article cites an online dictionary giving a definition for the term which includes that usage. You placed the NPOV tag; how do you suggest the article be improved regarding your concern? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

My previous edit clearly stated the presence of conflicting definitions (here), but was reverted by North8000. Assault Weapons does not always mean full-auto machine guns, unlike the present wording implies. The present wording pushes a POV agenda, to conflate full auto machine guns with civilian-owned semi-automatic rifles. The article should be improved to state the difference clearly. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Miguel Escopeta, I think that I 100% overall agree with your intent. IMHO the edits that you made accidentally worked against your own intent. So IMHO I'm working towards your goal and you are accidentally working against your goal. :-) :-). North8000 (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course it needs improvements. North8000 (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually read the change (here), or did you read the html script of the diff? If you read the actual formatted text (here), rather than just reading the html script diff, I believe you will see that what I wrote was, and is, very clear. And, no, I didn't accidentally write my edit, but was very careful in wording it correctly. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Miguel Escopeta I did. In order to avoid the mistaken conflation (as we both wish to do)one must provide information on the inconsistency. IMHO your post inadvertently does the opposite by (in essence) erroneously saying that the dicotomy does not exist. Since I think that we are in agreement on the big picture, can we just move on and work on some improved wording? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

But it doesn't exist in either sunset Federal Law or under still existing state laws. There is no fundamental difference among these laws. They all state that assault weapons specifically are not fully-automatic firearms. On the other hand, leaving the article the way it is pushes an agenda of conflating military fully-automatic machine guns with civilian semi-automatic firearms, by stating that all assault weapons are fully-automatic. Our goal should be to inform readers, not confuse and mislead them into thinking that assault weapons are fully-automatic when they are not. This distinction is sorely needed, as many readers come to Wikipedia to form opinions, and the article should be factual. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what you just said 100%. Now what? The reality is that the common meaning of "assault weapon" for what is in those laws and firearms in civilian hands is "full auto:" which conflicts with the realities of both the laws and what's in common civilian possession. We must inform the readers on this mistaken impression; IMHO your edit does the opposite, it erroneously says that the mistaken impression does not exist by saying that the common meaning is semi-auto. . North8000 (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The common meaning is semi-auto. This is the law in several states, as well as in the sunset Federal Assault Weapons law. It is also what is actually in civilian hands throughout the country, totaling well over 10 million firearms among the estimated 350+ million firearms. Common usage is clearly semi-auto. That said, there is also a much smaller usage to conflate the term with fully-automatic, for a variety of reasons. But this usage for reasons of conflation is already documented in the article. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ask 10 people who are unfamiliar with firearms and I'll bet 9 will mistakenly tell you that the "assault weapon bans" are to outlaw guns that shoot as "machine guns" and that mass shootings etc. are committed with guns that shoot as "machine guns". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

There is currently a content dispute about the lead section of the Assault weapon article. All editors are invited to participate in the discussion. This is a serious subject, and the article is getting a lot of page views because of recent events. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 18:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Assault weapons are semi-automatic. Assault rifles are full-automatic. The two terms are often confused. The lead section of the article should explain this in simple, direct terms. In my opinion it currently does not. And starting the article by saying that it's a term that has been given many different meanings is unhelpful, I think. While the exact definition does vary from law to law, it's actually pretty clear what an assault weapon is in general terms. I therefore propose a major rewrite of the lead section. Something along these lines would be good, in my opinion. I consider this to be a working draft, and I haven't bothered putting in any links:

An assault weapon is a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms. An assault weapon has a detachable magazine, and it usually has a pistol grip; sometimes it has certain other features such as a folding stock, a flash suppressor, a bayonet mount, or a grenade launcher. Most assault weapons are rifles, but some are pistols or shotguns.

"Assault weapon" is not a technical term. The meaning of the term is set by various laws that limit or prohibit their manufacture, importation, sale, or possession. These laws include the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban, as well as some state and local laws. Each of these laws defines the term in a slightly different way.

Assault weapons are often confused with assault rifles. The two are similar in appearance but different in function. Since an assault weapon is semi-automatic, it fires one round (bullet) each time the trigger is pulled. Assault rifles are actual military weapons that are either fully-automatic, i.e. they fire multiple rounds continuously when the trigger is pulled, or selective-fire, i.e. they fire a burst of several rounds when the trigger is pulled.

Whether or not assault weapons should be legally restricted more than other firearms, how they should be defined, and even whether or not the term "assault weapon" should be used at all, are questions subject to considerable debate as part of the arguments of gun politics in the United States.

Cheers. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree it needs cleanup, but we should not be pretending that assault rifle has a consistent definition. We should give its various definitions and common usages. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"Assault rifle"? Don't you mean "assault weapon"? Thus inadvertently demonstrating the point that the two terms are often confused? If yes, I'm not pretending. That's really what it means. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Agree that "starting the article by saying that it's a term that has been given many different meanings is unhelpful". A good lead must state what the term means. Webster's Dictionary featured the term in their "trend watch" today with the blurb: "Lookups spiked on December 18, after the devastating events in Newtown, CT, the national conversation included many references to the kind of weapon used in this and other recent shootings, and to the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. An assault rifle, also called an assault weapon, is defined as "any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use." It is a translation of Sturmgewehr, the name of a German rifle used in World War II." That is the description of the term as used. Others argue that the term cannot include automatic weapons, as it was defined by U.S. legislation. So is the definition prescriptive, descriptive, or does the article give both? --Cornellier (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The Webster's Dictionary writeup does what a lot of other sources have done -- it confuses the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon". The article should clarify the misconception rather than perpetuating it. An assault rifle is any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use. That's covered in its own article, assault rifle. An assault weapon is always semi-automatic. It's the thing that's restricted or banned by the laws that define it, like the expired federal ban, or the current law in California. The two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but that's simply not correct. (I guess that means I'm taking a more prescriptive approach, but I'm also advocating explaining the difference in the lead, which is descriptive.) I know I'm biased, but I really think my proposed rewrite explains this quite nicely, and is also written in a way that's considerably more direct and less labored than any previous version of the lead. You can see a refined version, with links, here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

We need to understand that it is a term with many widely varying meanings, and no consistent meaning. Even the most notable definition (the expired federal ban) did not define the term, the definition has been taken to mean firearms restricted by that "assault weapons ban"; by that definition pistol configurations commonly carried by police are defined as "assault weapons". And even in that case "assault weapon" is not in the name of the law, it started as a marketing term which the became a common name for it. So I think that we need to cover it as a term, and cover all of it's common conflicting meanings, including the "common (mis)impression" meaning which is a synonym for Assault rifle. (by North8000)

"Assault weapon" is not a term with many widely varying meanings. It's a term with one specific meaning, and only minor variations between the different laws that define it. It's also a term that's often confused with a different term, "assault rifle". The current version of the lead section adds to the confusion. The proposed rewrite fixes the confusion, by explaining it. And I am hoping that more editors, besides the three of us, will add their opinions here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, when president Obama, when talking about new potential legislation said that these (paraphrasing) "these belong in hands of the military, not on the streets" which "single" definition was he talking about? The non-military semi-automatic firearms, or the already heavily-restricted full-auto-capable military Assault rifle?

He was talking about the non-military semi-automatic firearms, definitely -- the assault weapons, as clearly described by the rewritten lead section that I'm advocating. He's said that he wants to reinstate the federal ban. The full-auto-capable military assault rifles are already heavily restricted, as you say, and President Obama knows that. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Is Gun Digest authoritative? Their Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons 7th Edition describes itself as being "all about true assault weapons...fully automatic, selective-fire or equipped with mission-specific features designed only for military and law enforcement applications." --Cornellier (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Mudwater, so you are saying that he is saying that the non-military types belong in the hands of the military. :-) IMHO his statement illustrates the inconsistent meanings. Using (both in the same sentence) one "impression" meaning which is the military types / Assault rifle and another meaning civilian types when it comes to the specifics of what to try to ban, which included pistols (pistol configurations holding 11 or more rounds) routinely carried by police. North8000 (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure Obama was speaking rhetorically. He meant that assault weapons are too dangerous for ordinary citizens to own, he wasn't literally proposing to have the U.S. Army fight wars with semi-automatic rifles. Or if I'm wrong and he was, some general is going to have to take him aside and set him straight. As far as the Gun Digest book, they're trying to be clever and further muddy the waters, to appeal to some gun owners who are opposed to banning assault weapons. Again, the key point is that the Wikipedia article should untangle the confusion rather than perpetuating it. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

In looking at this some more, there is no consensus for the numerous recent changes to the article. From mid-December 2008 to mid-July 2012, the lead section was really very similar to the version that I have proposed -- see for example this version, from December 29, 2008, and this version from July 22, 2012. Then from July 22 to December 16, the lead section was still pretty similar, but had been modified somewhat, for example by this edit which changed the lead paragraph pretty significantly. Then starting on December 16 -- shortly after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting -- a large number of edits were made to the lead section, and to other sections of the article, without much discussion here. Perhaps the most dramatic example is this edit, by Cornellier, which changed the lead from saying that assault weapons are semi-automatic, to saying that they are automatic and semi-automatic -- a huge difference in meaning, and a perfect example of what I'm talking about when I say that the current lead section adds to the confusion, when it should be eliminating the confusion by explaining the term "assault weapon" in simple, direct language.

Based on all this, I am going ahead with the proposed rewrite of the lead section. Again, it clearly and directly explains what an assault weapon is, but at the same time is very similar to the version of the lead section that was in effect from December 2008 to July of this year, and still pretty similar to the version that was in effect from July until one week ago, when many changes started being made without a consensus of editors. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I reverted. This had the fundamental problem discussed here which is why there was no agreement. Lets work out something here. Most likely it should be along the lines of covering the various meanings. North8000 (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Until there is agreement among editors about the changes made over the last week, they should not stay in the article, so I'm putting the rewrite of the lead back in. As explained in detail in my previous post, this version of the lead is similar to the way it was for four years and until recently. There's no consensus for the recent changes, which entirely change the meaning -- for example, by saying that some assault weapons are automatic firearms (!) -- and which, as I've said, add considerably to the existing confusion about this subject. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 16:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop trying to war this change in,. The assertion that it has a single definition, is unsourced, implausible, conflicts with sourcing, and had opposition, not agreement in talk. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I started a "definitions and usage" section. We can start putting in the various sourced defs and usage here and then build the commensurate section in the lead from that material. North8000 (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added a Request for Comment, in the hope that many other editors will participate in this discussion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 18:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

To distill the question, the core points of contention are that you want to put an edit in which implicitly states that "assault rifle" "assault weapon" has a consistent definition with respect to "full auto / semi-auto") and that that definition says "semi-automatic" and thus excludes "fully automatic". And remove the "many different meanings" statement. And I disagree.North8000 (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

"Assault rifle"? Don't you mean "assault weapon"? Thus inadvertently demonstrating the point that the two terms are often confused? *Shakes head sadly* — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for catching. No argument that they get conflated. North8000 (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW, you are editing to say that it means only semi-automatic, 174....just edited to say that it means only automatic, and I am in the middle saying that sources conflict and vary on this. North8000 (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Have cleaned up this article. I chose BRD, as this should be fixed quickly, with a new AWB likely in the next 4 weeks. Have also added references. It is easier to just edit the whole article quickly, rather than getting bogged down with wiki-lawyering. (North8000, your bias is showing badly.). Yaf (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, bias towards having the lead summarize what is actually in the sourced material. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Yaf, I just went through that massive amount of edits and figured out what you havs been doing. You have been putting in an unsourced personal vision that "assault weapon" has a consistent definitio, put ion what that vision is, putting in clearly fase unsourced POV statements (such as the term being defined by federal law in 43 states, that the current definitions are "previous" and knocking out sourced definitions (e.g. Websters and per Conneticut law. Please stop! North8000 (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I included a item done by somebody else in the recent edit bundle in that list. So not all was you. North8000 (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the definition(s).....there's really only one solid route....get sourced definitions into the body of the article, and have the lead accurately summarize them, on an ongoing basis. North8000 (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, you delete the WSJ article reference, edit war with other editors, and reinsert your Brady Campaign propaganda. You edit war as an admin. The current article is now extremely biased to the anti-gun perspective, only. The NPOV tag will undoubtedly become permanent. Yaf (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where I deleted a WSJ reference. I will look again; if I did I will put it back in. The rest of your post makes no sense and I am totally confused by it. North8000 (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the guideline is collaboration first. The basic concept is that multiple editors work together to build a mutually agreeable article. This can be more challenging when the subject is controversial, as is certainly the case here. But editors can still collaborate effectively, by trying to create a well-balanced article with a neutral point of view. We can still do that here, if everyone cooperates. That means editors should let other editors make substantive contributions, and refrain from repeatedly reverting others' legitimate edits. While I don't wish to make anyone feel defensive by singling them out, and I'm addressing these remarks to everyone in general, I would request that North8000 in particular reassess his approach to this article. I appreciate everyone's enthusiasm for the subject, but, we need to try to build a consensus here. We can do that by adding our own contributions while refining each other's edits, by discussing particular points on the talk page, or both. Taking control of the article by continually removing the contributions of other editors is not the way to go here on Wikipedia. Again, by working towards a neutrally-worded, well-balanced article, we can end up with something that we all find acceptable, and that serves the needs of our readers. Thanks! — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)