Talk:Assault weapon

previous edits

Everyone please be clear on the actual legal definitions of assault weapons before editing. Problems I have seen recently include:

• Automatic weapons - The federal AWB specifically defined assault weapons as semi-automatic and, regardless, new manufacture of full-auto for civilians was regulated in 1934 banned in 1986, both before the assault weapons laws.
• Armor piercing ammunition - The federal AWB certainly didn't cover AP ammunition (such as 5.7mm SS190 round or 5.56mm SS109 round) and neither does any state ban I am aware of; this is usually covered by seperate laws.

- Andrew Skaggs

---

NPOV concerns have been ongoing with partisans on both sides inserting their opinions.

---

Delirium suggested tighter integration with the assault weapons ban article.

---

I've made a number of revisions throughout this article in the pursuit of neutrality and objectivity. At this point, I have the following concerns:

• The reference to "inaccurate media reporting and political propaganda" has the appearance of bias, but for reasons I've previously explained, I believe this statement to be entirely true. Still though, it would be nice to get rid of even the appearance of bias.
• The position of gun control advocates seems nonsensical to me, even though I tried to revise this in the best spirit of fairness, even using language derived from their own position papers.
• The removal of this article from the Firearms category is curious. While the term (as commonly used and defined) is an invention of the American political system and gun control advocates, it has come to mean something to the American public. If I walk into a gun shop and ask to see their assault weapons, I'll get some dirty looks and maybe a lecture, but eventually they'll get around to showing me the AR-15's and semi-auto AK-47's. One could argue that including this article in the Firearms category is entirely appropriate. Since the party that did the removal is a substantial contributor to Wikipedia, I am loathe to undo this change.

I would appreciate some feedback on these issues.Greg G.

What you're doing looks very good to me. This is a tricky and ill-defined term, but so far I think this article's doing a good job of presenting all angles. Friday 03:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

.223 prohibited for deer, by state

Two states banning .223 rifles from hunting deer does not equal some states banning them. Be specific.

Being specific does not mean changing "some" to "two" when there are more than 2 states that ban them but I only referenced two states.Reginhild 16:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I vote for leaving the wording "some states", since we have not established how many states ban .223 for deer. This does require more research. I'll start by removing South Carolina and adding Illinois, so we're still at two states so far, although I'm guessing there's a bunch more. If you look at the SC link that I've removed,[1] they prohibit .22 rimfire in some zones and they recommend strongly against anything under .243 or 6mm, but they don't actually ban the smaller centerfire calibers. To even things out I've added a link to the Illinois firearm deer permit application,[2] where anything under .30 caliber is illegal. -- Mudwater 23:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Upon further review, I've taken Illinois back out. They don't allow conventional rifles for deer, so it's a moot point for them. On the other hand, I've added Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, and Washington. With Virginia, that makes six states, which I certainly think qualifies as "some". There's probably more states too, I only checked about half of them. -- Mudwater 01:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

military use of this term

It does appear that the American military has adopted the use of this term to describe any number of light weapons that can be used by an individual soldier. I believe the article should be expanded to accomodate both the statutory and military definitions. For military references, use the following link: Mil Search Gregmg 18:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Here are just a few of the military uses of 'assault weapon'. I'm hard pressed to find anything in common between these uses. My guess is that once the term became a part of the American vernacular in the early 90's, various parties in the military and defense contractors decided to incorporate it into weapon names.

SHOULDER-LAUNCHED MULTIPURPOSE ASSAULT WEAPON (SMAW)- A lightweight, man-portable rocket launcher designed for use against fortified positions and light armor. The dual-mode warhead provides point detonation for hard targets and delayed detonation for soft targets.

AIRBORNE ASSAULT WEAPON - An unarmored, mobile, full-tracked gun providing a mobile antitank capability for airborne troops. Can be airdropped.

STRYKER ASSAULT WEAPON - A vehicle mounted 105mm cannon used against tanks, hard targets, as well as dismounted infantry.

Gregmg 14:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I don't think we can use any of those definitions in this article. They range from a small rocket to what used to be called "assault guns" in previous generations of armor and do not come close to approaching any sort of consensus. I'm fixing the partisan edit that some anonymous user made to suggest the military uses the term for rifles as well as cutting down the summary which has grown a little long-winded.

Askaggs 07:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

The US military as well as other militaries use the term for fully automatic rifles - references added. - Reginhild 20:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of completeness, wouldn't it be good to explain the various military uses somewhere in this article? Gregmg 13:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you did a good job researching the military use but I just don't see that it would be useful to people wanting to actually find out what an assault weapon is. At most the article needs one sentence that says something to the effect of there being no established military definition and the term is used to refer to anything from man-portable rocket launchers to armored vehicles. --Askaggs 18:51, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia - if someone is trying to find out about a military assault weapon they would be long astray if the only definition were that adopted for civilian regulation of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns in the United States. -Reginhild 20:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because there are certain military weapons systems that contain the word pair "assault weapon" doesn't mean that the term has a particular definition or significance in military science. Often these weapon systems are named to fit an Acronym, so are technically backronyms, and in any case, the names are chosen to be "sexy" for funding purposes. The fact is that "assault weapon" is redundant, both in a common-parlance context and in a military-science context. Weapons of any kind can be used to commit the crime known as assault. If conducting a military assault (attack against fortifications), any and all effective weapons can be used, and I can't think of a particular weapon that is only of use while soldiers are "assaulting" with the possible limited exception of the Bangalore Torpedo. The section of the article entitled "Military Characteristics" confuses (intentionally, perhaps) the distinction between "assault weapons" (a general term in common usage) and "assault rifles" (a particular kind of full-auto carbine). I'd like to see that section cleaned up, but don't have the energy to do it this second. Wolfrick 19:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Remember, that something designed specifically to aid in assault operations does not imply that it would only be used in an assault or that other weapons would not be used for such. AP weapons designed specifically for AP use are sometime used in AM role and vice versa (even though technically illegal for some AM to be used for AP). The weapons used by the military designated "assault weapon" in their title are designated such for a reason. The bureaucracy in the military is incredible and approval of titles also goes through many people.

supporters and detractors

I reinstated the supporters and detractors section because I don't think that it is overly generalized and I do think that placing this term in the proper context is important. Without knowing the 'for' and 'against' positions, the reader is left without the background info that's needed. As I've mentioned above, I do have concerns about how the detractor's position is characterized. I can speak with some authority that the supporters position covers all of the key points. Gregmg 02:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll go through that section and list my objections. Many aren't about generalization, but those that are are majorly so; many are also based on how I read the section, and I may be reading it totally wrong. I'm reading this from the anti-AWB side of things, in case it matters.

"Gun rights advocates" and (farther down) "Gun control advocates"

Your stance on assault weapons legislation does not necessarily have any relationship with your stance on gun rights/control in general.

"hold that the attributes used to create statutory definitions are largely cosmetic."

The attributes aren't cosmetic, but they may have been chosen for the definitions for cosmetic reasons.

"As such, there really isn't any difference between an assault weapon and any other firearm."

Sure, there is, just not one that all will agree is dangerous and/or worth banning.

"They also suggest that these weapons are generally suitable for target shooting, collecting, and when necessary, civil and self defense."

Not all do and an "assault weapon" isn't necessarily a weapon by definition. I also have another harder to explain objection...I guess it feels to me like it's trivializing the position of anti-AW legislation people. Fun target shooting versus defending the public safety with defense tacked on to the former for some NPOV...

"They further contend that these types of weapons are not frequently used in crime."

That contention is a fact, at least according to the USDoJ, and putting it down here makes it sound to me like an unproven point.

"They believe that the right of Americans to possess such weapons is guaranteed by the Second Amendment."

I don't believe so, and I know I'm not alone, although I don't know how common that view is.

"Gun control advocates such as the Brady Campaign and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence are critical of the private ownership of assault weapons and support legislative attempts to ban them."

I read this as implying a direct relationship between being pro-gun control, being critical of private ownership of assault weapons, and supporting legislative attempts to ban them.

"They hold that assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire and by being spray-fired from the hip. They further contend that because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession. As such, these weapons pose a serious threat to public safety and should be banned."

What about AWB supporters who feel the law is (only) useful as a step toward banning all firearms? (And I'm not just theorizing about their existance.) 68.32.176.48

First let me say "thank you" for engaging in this discussion. Especially providing such a detailed point-by-point list of your concerns. The common thread among the items you've listed seems to be with viewpoints not addressed by the polarized pro and con viewpoints presented in the article? That may be an oversimplification, but is that fair to say? I'd like the opportunity to give your concerns some thought and take a stab at revising the article accordingly. My opposition to removing the whole section stems from my view that 'assault weapons' are largely a political invention, and not a technical one. To remove the supporter and detractor positions is to remove this term from the political context from which it was created. I think the reader who is unfamiliar with this term needs the extra background information. Of course, you're welcome to revise the article as you see fit. I would only ask that you leave this section included in some fashion. Thanks! Gregmg 30 June 2005 03:14 (UTC)

I've attempted to address some of your concerns. I'll give some more thought to this and try to do more. I like the current wording concerning uses of these weapons... kind of runs the gamut from the trivial to the important. How these weapons are frequently used is a point often raised by those, like myself, who oppose banning them. Many who favor banning them scoff at the notion they could be used like any other gun; for activities or uses like target shooting or self defense. Further, to just reference civil defense and self defense might leave the impression with the reader that these weapons really are more dangerous than 'normal' firearms. I will try to expand this section further to address your other concerns, but I think it's important to note that it's not necessary to provide equal footing to minority viewpoints; see NPOV for more information. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to downplay your concerns. But I'm not sure that it's necessary to thoroughly flesh out the views of those who support gun control, but oppose AW bans, or the views of those who are pro-gun, but support AW bans. I remain concerned with how the detractor's position is represented. Gregmg 2 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)

That section looks pretty good to me now; thanks and good work. :)

"That may be an oversimplification, but is that fair to say?"

Basically, I'd say the way the viewpoints were presented bothered me because it wasn't quite accurate, even if the views are by far the ones most encountered. 68.32.176.48

(editorial note: Reginhild's comments moved from within older discussion above. They pertain to "spray fired from the hip." gregmg)

I find this claim very interesting due to the fact that it is more difficult to fire a weapon with a pistol grip from the hip. A rifle or shotgun with stock grip (non-pistol grip) is easier to hold and fire from hip level. Just go to any gun store and try this out for yourself!Reginhild 21:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I find the claim complete BS, but that doesn't matter. It is part of the anti-AW position and must be in the article if we are to provide any pro and con statements at all. Gregmg 15:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

redirect to federal assault weapons ban?

This article don't describe assault weapons in any more detail then the federal assault weapons ban. The big draw back would be the potential confusion coming from being redirected to a page about a law when you excepted a page about a kind of weapon.

This should redirect to the "Assault Rifle" article. There is no such thing as a so-called "assault weapon" save as defined by the US assault weapons ban; the term is political and not practical. A link from the "Assault Rifle" article to the "Assault Weapons Ban" article would suffice, and would serve to eliminate redundancy; this article merely restates the definition of a so-called "assault weapon" given in the assault weapons ban.

• The problem is, assault rifles and assault weapons are two separate concepts. A redirect would only lead to more confusion. A redirect to the ban page sounds more reasonable, but this page doesn't seem to be doing any harm.

^^^ It looks like you're going around in circles. I think this page is necessary.

Assault rifle already has an article, no need to mess with that. This page doesn't appear to me to contribute anything not already covered in Assault weapons ban. Friday 8 July 2005 06:45 (UTC)

I disagree. I think this article needs to remain in place. Primarily because the term has come to mean something. If I walk into a gun store and ask to see their assault weapons, I may not get a warm reception but they will likely take me to the AR-15 and AK-47S rifles, Tec-9 pistols, etc., regardless of what statutory definitions may exist for that jurisdiction. I wish this term didn't exist and I do consider it completely pejorative, but unfortunately, it has become part of the American vernacular. As described in the first paragraph of the article, it may be defined in law or it may be used generically to describe weapons with a particular appearance. For these reasons, I believe this article needs to remain in place. Gregmg 8 July 2005 11:24 (UTC)

I agree, the article needs to remain in place seperate from Assault weapons ban and assault rifle because the term has multiple definitions. One definition is covered in the ban page. This page allows the expansion to cover full definition of the term rather than the specific application in U.S. regulation of semi-automatic rifles. -Reginhild 20:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall that "assault weapon" became a term because of the ban and the moral panic surrounding it. However I'm not sure how to verify such a thing. If there's a way to show that "assault weapon" didn't really have an existance as a term except in the context of the ban, then I'd support the redirect. The discussion below suggest that this term is only used in the US, where the "assault weapons" ban took place. Maybe Assault weapons ban should redirect here instead, and this article could tell the whole story. To clarify, if "assault weapon" is only meaningful in the context of certain US laws, I don't think we need a seperate articles for the law(s) and the "assault weapons" involved. Definitely we should not redirect to Assault rifle. Things like Assault rifle, Battle rifle, and Submachine gun are technical terms used by the military, whereas (in my experience) "Assault weapon" is a political, not technical, term. Friday 9 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)

I've read but I haven't been able to confirm that the term was first used by gun enthusiasts in the early '80s. There were apparently some publications with titles like "Assault Weapons of the World", or something like that. It also appeared in advertisements in gun publications. It was used to describe semi-automatics with a military appearance that were growing in popularity thanks to movies like "Rambo" (82) and "Terminator" (84). It was comandeered by gun control activitists around 1986 when it was first referenced by Josh Sugerman. They saw the opportunity to take advantage of confusion between semi-auto and full auto guns to ban a good number of semi-autos. Regardless of who first used it, I still believe this article should remain as is because right now, in the US, it does mean something. Even in states and jurisdictions where there are no restrictions on these guns, this term is still occasionally used. So it has a meaning beyond any relevant assault weapon bans. Gregmg 9 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)

There is a book out titled "Assault RIFLES of the World" however if you do an Amazon Books and Google search you will not find conclusive reference to a book called "Assault Weapons of the World".Reginhild 21:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Variations on the term were in use in the 1980's, before Assault Weapons became the latest rallying cry of gun control activists. Check out this link. [3] Aside from these references to Assault Pistols, Assault Firearms, and semi-auto Assault Rifles, I vaguely recall hearing the term Assault Weapon bantered about. Like it or not, the term has a life outside of any federal ban and needs a standalone article. Gregmg 22:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct on variations of the term in use as well as "survival rifle" and others. The first recorded defining of the term "Assault Weapon" to mean a semi-automatic rifle seems to be the in the 1994 ban. Note in the link provided by Gregmg above that the VPC.org consistently states "Assault Weapon" and quotes the terms "Assault Rifle" or "Assault Pistol" from 1980' publications. eg. from the link: Guns & Ammo, the leading gun magazine, regularly called civilian semiautomatic assault weapons "assault firearms," "assault rifles," and "assault pistols" until a series of tragic shootings caused the industry to deny there was such a thing as a civilian assault weapon.[4]- VPC.org Reginhild 23:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The term was in use before '94. California's ban took effect in '89. The term meant something before it was codified into any bans, therefore, this article needs to exist separate from the federal ban article. Gregmg 15:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, because this article is defining a term rather than related to any specific ban or one set of definitions. -Reginhild 20:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's possible. I'd never heard the term used other than by the anti-gun crowd. In my experience, every "gun enthusiast" I know of thinks this term is meaningless and would never use it. But this could certainly be particular to my own locale. Looks like you're not alone in the talk page here in thinking this needs it's own article. I suppose that means it's worth keeping. Friday 05:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

US-centrism and deletionism

A key problem with the development of this page into a proper encyclopedia article is the efforts of certain contributors to maintain the page in a manner that excludes anything not specifically addressed in the American National Firearms Act.

This does not suit Wikipedia as it is not as inclusive as possible over the wide range of definitions of the term "assault weapon." It is not POV to include such issues, but it is to remove them because they do not suit the article from your POV. There is a world outside the United States and in creating a global Wikipedia we must include a broad range of viewpoints that will not always fall within the highly specific criterion used by the deletionists on this page. --Alexwcovington (talk) 18:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, not only international usage of the term but wide usage by the U.S. military for a multiple systems to include small arms. A good dictionary or encyclopedia is comprehensive and not used to express a single viewpoint. -Reginhild 20:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Alex, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by including other viewpoints. There must be a line drawn somewhere, otherwise the term loses all meaning. Maybe you would agree with dropping any attempt from a technical definition in this article and leaving that to the assault weapons ban and other articles covering specific laws. That would leave this article as purely politics and redirects, although I am of the opinion that is the sole rationale for using this term anyway. As for the American-centric viewpoint of the article, I would not dispute that, although I am unaware of the term being used outside of the USA. If anyone has any knowledge of foreign use I would be interested to hear it. - Andrew Skaggs

Russian designation of 7.62/40 and 9/40 Assault Weapon Systems. Working in the Ordnance Corps for 15 years has its advantages :) -Reginhild 20:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to keep a definition for Assault Weapon in Wikipedia, in spite of the fact that its a highly political, highly contentious, and very US centric term. To simply redirect users to 'Assault Rifle' might create confusion between the two terms; one being political and vague, and the other being technical and precise. As contributors to Wikipedia, I think it is incumbent upon us to provide the most honest, objective, and technically precise definition for this term. - Greg G.

I agree, the page that defines a term should bring clarity by revealing and contrasting all definitions. Reginhild 20:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Detractors

I was highly surprised to read this: "They hold that assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire and by being spray-fired from the hip." (attributes to groups like Brady). Is this really true? It seems like an obviously silly belief, perhaps intended to discredit the pro-gun-control crowd. Also fixed slight NPOV problem in that section. Friday 8 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)

As I've previously mentioned on this page, I am concerned about the wording of the detractor's position. I am largely responsible for the current wording; before making any edits I consulted their position papers and borrowed language without copying text outright. The detractor's position seems absolutely silly to me, but it is entirely consistent with their stated positions. I would encourage you to consult their websites as well as any other published sources and modify this as you see fit. Gregmg 8 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)

From bradycampaign.org: "...semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession." I have no desire to misrepresent the detractor's position. Please make whatever changes you feel are needed. Gregmg 8 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)

All I can say is, wow. They appear to do a good job of discrediting themselves. Thanks for your reply and the quote. Friday 8 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)

Large, High, or Normal

I revised the wording in the characteristics section that Yaf changed yesterday. The previous wording was "Large" or "High" capacity that became "Large" or "High" or "Normal" capacity" which didn't present a clear idea about what characteristic was in question. However, it could be that the use of Large and High in this context in the various state and local laws is pejorative or at the very least, reflects the POV on the part of the legislators. Putting "large" and "high" in quotes seems the right approach, but I suspect Yaf wanted to take this a step further and reflect the notion that the magazine capacity in question really is just "normal". In any case, I'm not exactly sure what's best, but I thought "larger" was a better word. Gregmg 00:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Magazines holding more than 10 rounds were the original-manufacturer normal capacity magazines. It was only when a POV re-naming occured with gun control advocates and like-minded legislators changing the labeling to call these same existing magazines "High" or "Large" capacity magazines that they came to be labeled as such in the media.

"Larger" is too close to the POV of gun control advocates who call them "Large" by my viewpoint. "Large" or "High" are both strongly pejorative adjective terms for expressing magazine capacity among gun rights advocates, who well remember these same magazines as being just the normal magazines that were available for decades. The issue became expecially touchy when newer magazines holding fewer rounds than the normal capacity during the Assault Weapon Ban decade from 1994 through 2004 turned out not to be reliable in many existing guns; not only were the reliable and normal capacity magazines unavailable at reasonable prices during the AWB years, the very reliability of guns on which many depended for self-defense were often made much less safe for use as self-defense weapons when used with the lessened-capacity magazines favored by gun control advocates. (Guns designed for double column magazines were especially made less reliable when the normal capacity of 15, 16, or 17 rounds was suddenly reduced to a maximum of 10 often unreliable rounds. As for the number of rounds being well established at more than 10 rounds, and this being the norm, the Browning Hi-Power is a prime example. It came out in 1935, and was one of many of normally well-regarded guns that suddenly became unreliable with magazines holding only 10 rounds, or less. I have tried another edit; if this still doesn't quite seem to be the right choice of words, then lets continue to work this issue to arrive at something that is truly NPOV. Yaf 01:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Moments before you (Yaf) wrote the above text, I dropped any descriptive term from the item in question. Let's discuss further if you have concerns about the modified wording. Gregmg 01:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that these terms are used as pejoratives, but these terms are being used by the people who are writing the legislation to ban guns and to not include them would be incomplete. Maybe we could append the following sentence: "These magazines are often referred to as "large" or "high" capacity even if the firearm's original magazines were of that size." --Askaggs 01:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that these terms are used by anti-gun legislators while writing new legislation. However, an encyclopedia should in general not support the continued use of pejorative terms without at least identifying them as such, to maintain a NPOV. Perhaps a phrasing of, ""These magazines are often referred to as "large" or "high" capacity even if the firearm's original magazines were of that size; these "large" or "high" capacity terms are considered pejorative by those favoring gun rights, who instead prefer to use the term "normal" capacity, as capacities of more than 10 rounds were the norm for many decades." This NPOV phrasing is awkward; for that reason, I favor just leaving what is already there. Yaf 02:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I still think it is worthy of mention. In my opinion the article's introduction makes it clear that the primary use of the term is political and readers will view everything in it through that lens. I would suggest strengthening the language in the introduction rather than pointing out rebuttals for every sentence. --Askaggs 03:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm really concerned about the Supporters and Detractors section. It was a bit unbalanced before Yaf's addition, and now it's really biased. Not wrong, mind you, just overweighted in a pro-gun direction. Also, as I said before, putting "large" and "high" in quotes is a fairly effective way to indicate that the use of the words in this context is suspect. I have a slight preference for returning High and Large back to the characteristics section, and I have a strong inclination to reword the Supporters and Detractors section to more tightly integrate Yaf's edits and bring back some balance. Gregmg 04:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I returned large/high to the article. As for NPOV in supporters/detractors, that section is always going to be a problem. It's a challenge to keep it short and list unique assault weapons arguments while not rehashing the entire gun control debate. I agree it's tilted too far pro-gun now. --Askaggs 04:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It just seemed a bit strong to me to end the Supporters/Detractors with, "They further contend that because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession, and thus, these weapons pose a serious threat to public safety and should be banned." This seems to imply that the sum total of opinion of the entire article is to ban assault weapons; at least that is the impression that the reader leaves with. Hardly NPOV. The rapid rate of fire earlier, though, is also indicative of a poor understanding of gun effectiveness, too. It was already a weak "Detractors" argument, before adding the counter argument of Kenneth W. Royce. Can't we find a better Detractor's argument, instead? Yaf 05:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of the Supporters and Detractors section is to provide both sides of the argument in a short, concise way. Per Wikipedia guidelines and policies, NPOV does not apply to such a section. It does, however, need to be balanced. Both positions need to be close to the same length. I looked long and hard to find something better for the anti-AW stance, but that was the best I could find. Since the majority of contributors to this article seem pro-gun, it would be best to give the anti position the last word, by placing their position second. In a few days, if no one beats me to it, I'll restructure the Supporters and Detractors section. Gregmg 15:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Restructured the Supporters and Detractors section to try to balance this section. Tried to beef up the Supporters' side to reach equilibrium. Yaf 16:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Grenade Launchers

It's my understanding that the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act did not differentiate between rifle grenades and attached grenade launchers. Attaching an M203 to a rifle would count as an "evil feature" regardless of it's seperate status as a registered destructive device. I'm therefore reverting the article unless anyone has documentation to prove otherwise. --Askaggs 05:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen any laws that declare flare launchers to be part of assault weapons. While gun nuts may know that is the only realistic attachment due to the destructive device taxes, all the laws written by gun-grabbers refer to them as grenade launchers. Since this article is about a manufactured political term I will continue to revert this until a legal citation is produced. --Askaggs 04:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the rifle grenade issue pop up a couple of times. The federal law seemed to apply to all types of grenade launchers, both self-propelled and older rifle fired, so I think it is best to leave the article more generic. Was there a state ban that specified rifle grenades that is causing the confusion, or is this general confusion over grenade launcher terminology? --Askaggs 15:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Aren't grenade launchers not attached to rifles regulated as destructive devices? Jeremy Nimmo 05:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some issues with grenade launchers. I believe the ones that assault weapon bans try to cover are the type that mount under the barrel of military style riles and not the rocket powered type. I think bans may try to include the type that mounts to the end of a rifle (vie barrel lugs/theading?) and are fired off with a blank (old WWII style) but im not sure about that. I believe legality of grenade launchers, like the famous M-79 (which works like the underbarrel type), depend from state to state, but they are not under any fedral ban. The launchers themselves are not considered a destructive device, but its explosive ammo is, and the ammo is therefore regulated under the NFA. I think this area needs more research before it can be placed into the article. [OC - unregistered user. 6/22/06]

The mention of grenade launchers as a feature in the U.S. assault weapons ban is extremely unclear. I've never seen any explanation by the authors of the legislation about what they intended. One could make a good case that they were talking about muzzle-launched rifle grenades. One example is the 22mm NATO standard outside diameter for flash-hiders, which then double as rifle grenade launchers. One could also make a good case that the original authors of the legislation had no idea what they were talking about, and simply looked through a book like 'Gun Digest' making a list of models and features they felt fitted their idea of a dangerous 'assault weapon'.

Grenade launchers like the 40x46mmSR M79 and M203 and others that use self-propelling grenade ammunition, are classified as regulated Destructive Devices by the 1968 amendments to the NFA. There is an exception for 37mm flare launchers and actual grenade launchers converted to 37mm flare caliber. The 37mm caliber is unrifled, and thus cannot be used to fire spin-armed explosive grenades, hence the exemption.

I would remove the clarification of the term 'grenade launcher' pending some citation over the original intent of this feature provision and its subsequent statutory definition by BATFE. 209.221.23.134 02:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A smooth bore 37mm can still fire a flare,gernade,solid shot,etc. Grenades not spinning can still be effective. Dudtz 10/15/06 5:37 PM EST

The 37mm was created to launch flares and other shot items but not Grenades. That is why it was made in 37mm rather than the 40mm that grenades are available for in the military. Reginhild 20:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Cosmetic features

I've moved my edit here-- "All of the features that are mentioned are cosmetic, safety, or ergonomic features and in no way affect a firearm's ability to shoot and kill a person." I ask again, how is this overbroad? What is POV about this? Here is the line as it originally read--"Some of the features that are mentioned were safety and ergonomic features. It is also worth noting that this did not make the firearm any less capable of shooting and killing a person." Why is this contentious? Cheers. L0b0t 19:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I must have missed the first time you brought this up for discussion. You have my apology for that.

Who is asserting that the features are cosmetic, safety, or ergonomic in nature? Is this your opinion or does this represent a conclusive analysis from an outside source? Remember, no original research is allowed on Wikipedia and we should refrain from interjecting our own opinion into an article. If you've found a pro-gun source making these assertions, we should move this comment into the pro-gun / anti-ban statement down further on the page and provide a proper citation. Thanks, Gregmg 21:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No apologies necessary, I was not the one who put the original line in. I just tried to punch it up a bit. The features listed seemed rather self-evidently cosmetic to me. If that falls under the rubrik of OR, then by all means lets take it out. I'll dig around for a source and see what pops up. Cheers. L0b0t 22:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Military Usage - Descriptive in Nature

Military usage of the term Assault Weapon is discriptive in nature as being a weapon or weapon system that is used for the purposes of an assault. This usage is why you see a variety of weapons from small armored vehicles for airborne units to wall breaching munitions. Airborne units are used to deploy forward and often take or assault airfields or similar objectives. Similarily, if a weapon system provides a significant advantage primarily for the assault the term is used. We see usage of the term assault weapon in WWII to describe flame-throwers. Flame throwers were used to attack fortified positions that were diffult to breach or assault.

The usage of the term primarily in the United States to refer to semi-automatic rifles became popular in 1994 with the "assault weapon ban". Unfortunately, the term assault does not truly apply in defining modern semi-automatic rifles. The military does not use semi-automatic rifles for assaults. Semi-automatic rifles are starting to be used by the military for sniping purposes as replacements for bolt action sniper rifles. The semi-automatic fire, while not sufficient for assault purposes, does enhance the ability of a military sniper to quickly engage multiple targets. Reginhild 21:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If I walk into a gun store and request to see their assault weapons, they aren't going to reply, "sorry, we don't carry military weapons". They'll just point me in the direction of the semi-autos with a military appearance. You and I may want this term to go away because it is used to breed confusion among the great unwashed masses, but unfortunately, it does mean something and it is a part of the modern American vernacular. The common use must take precedence over the military use for this reason. Gregmg 15:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. We should not let the recent, Americocentric co-opting of the phrase to trump a well established definition. K1ng l0v3

As for common useage, it would seem to depend on who you are associating with. I hear the long-standing military definition every day, but only hear the gungrabbing def. from gun control advocates. Just a matter of perspective I suppose.K1ng l0v3 15:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the article would better serve readers by focusing on the real definition of the term and talk about Sheridans, Bangalore torpedos, et al. Then have a small section at the bottom mentioning the attempt by gun grabbers to co-opt the phrase. Since the AWB is no longer law, we should also lose the GIANT section on AWB classification as that is already covered by the article for AWB. K1ng l0v3 15:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I live in Arizona and hear this term frequently in gun stores. It makes me cringe every time I hear it but still, the term is commonly applied to semi-autos of a military appearance. I've also heard the expression in California, Missouri, and Indiana. Further, any time you hear "assault weapon" on the news, they are talking about civilian weapons. I wish this wasn't the case, but it is. The term is commonly applied to semi-auto weapons with a military appearance, so we must give that definition precedence in this article. Gregmg 15:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I must respectfully disagree. The "common usage" is usage in error and we would better serve our readers by focusing on the correct meaning not the recent co-option. If people who are using a word or phrase incorrectly aren't corrected how will they know about their error? K1ng l0v3 02:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fad Terminology?

The term assault weapon has had established military usage for modern weapons since WWII. Is the new usage of the term as applied to semi-automatic rifles and shotguns in non-descriptive manner a fad? The political usage has only recently come into effect since the 1994 ban - where the application of the term was admittedly used to create support for the ban.Reginhild 21:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be most happy to see the article focus on the traditional use of the word and have the faddish, modern, portmanteau usage relegated to a small section about the gun-grabbers trying to co-opt the term. Also, we should lose the AWB checklist as the AWB is no more. Keep up the good work.K1ng l0v3 21:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the term has been used now for at least thirty years to describe semi-autos with a military appearance. Therefore, it is no fad. No one would be happier than me to see this term fall out of use but that's unlikely. As Wikipedians, we must set aside our own interests and strive to produce articles unbridled by our point of view. The common usage by the general public must take precedence over any military definitions in this article. Gregmg 15:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The Military terminology should be no less important than public usage of the term in the U.S. eg. economic fiat vs. military fiat. The usage of the term "Assault Weapon" by the public is derived from military usage however misappropriately applied. To sever the tie to origin yet adopt terminology implying that type of usage, is a problem that causes bastardization of terms and terminology. As is the case with the application of the term "assault", it gives a military connotation to a semi-automatic rifle yet avoids the basis for such a term as used by the military. In the military, the term is applied to systems that are primarily advantageous in assault operations.-Reginhild 21:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

As the page says any reverts or changes should be supported by references —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.71.219.157 (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Cosmetic, Ergonomic, Safety based features used in defining assault weapon by 1994 ban

This area is for links to supporting and counter arguments.

The magazine design used in the AR15 as patented by Eugene Stoner was done to improve weight (ergonomics): Eugene Stoner Magazine Patent 1959 -Reginhild 17:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The patent by Eugene Stoner for 'gun' is a patent on ornamental design that has the features of a typical AR15 or AR10 with pistol grip and shrouded barrel forward grip: Eugene Stoner Gun Patent 1960 -Reginhild 17:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Come on Wikipedia folks - so far I am the only person that has added any references to this page. Reginhild 00:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I speak for most respectable Wikipedians when I say references can be hard to come by. I try and use them whenever possible but sometimes it can take a while to find where some information came from, and sometimes you can't find a reliable source for something. That's why I like Amazon.com's search a book feature. It lets me look for a keyword, and then I can look up the page in my hard copy. Anyone looking for a reference in a book should consider using that function if they are having trouble. LWF 00:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reorganized "See also", "Notes", and "References", per WP:GTL, WP:CITE, and WP:FN. As part of this reorganization I have given the Notes and References more descriptive labels. If the same external link was used as a footnote and also in "See also", I only kept the one in the footnote. So, the references themselves are exactly the same as before, they're just organized more in conformance with Wikipedia standards now. -- Mudwater 02:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we are starting to get somewhere with actual contributors who do some research and provide references :) Reginhild 16:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Rude Awakening

This whole 'Assault Weapon' Gig is bulls***, just designed by the democrat jacka**es to steal our guns, so they can issue them to the military at no cost. then geuss what? The taxes skyrocket, because without firearms, we cannot rebel and end this corruption, the same reason they killed the first amendment right to free speach. now they can use taxation without representation all over again. I recommend to revolt the instant a gun-grabber like that hilary b**** is in office. then you can keep your country. If they do get this, the democracy we love so much will sease to exist, as our republic becomes an empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.199.78 (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)