Talk:Assault weapon

Neutral lead

Gimme a break - "In the United States, assault weapon is a political term used by anti gun advocacy groups to define and restrict specific firearms." You guys call that neutral? 162.119.231.132 (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, yes. I would have used "propaganda" rather that "political". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I've returned the first sentence of the lede to the way it read prior to November 2014, before someone changed it from "a legal and political term used in firearms laws" to "a term used by anti gun advocacy groups", which clearly isn't neutral and should have been discussed here on the Talk Page first. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

For the lead, one question is whether or not the current version is neutral. Another, separate question is how best to briefly define the term technically. Skipping the neutrality issues for now, I'm going to change it from "Definitions usually include semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and one or more tactical, cosmetic, ergonomic, or safety features, such as a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or barrel shroud, respectively" to "Definitions usually include semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud". This is better for three reasons. (1) By far the most common definitions include the combination of detachable magazine and pistol grip. The rest tends to vary a lot. (2) It omits, for the lead paragraph, the debate about whether the features are functional, cosmetic, or whatever. That should be covered later in the article. For the lead it's better just to say that they're features. (3) The word "respectively" doesn't make sense in this sentence. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

What is notable, sourced, and true is that it is used by anti-gun groups. All else is secondary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's also notable and sourced that it has been used by Federal government officials and legislators in passing laws, state governments, the media and social commentators, and even by some in the firearms industry itself. Whose point of view or "truth" are we trying to emphasize then by editing the first sentence of the lede to define it as propaganda by anti-gun groups to restrict firearms? Keeping an article like this NPOV should be our chief concern. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the term is used only by or referring to anti-gun activists seems more important than details of the vague and variable "definition" of the term. We can eeasily find sources for specific definitions; finding a source for what the definitions have in common probably was difficult, but I see it has been done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, that it is used to restrict firearms seems adequate to indicate that it is only used by anti-gun groups. I often oppose "piling on", even when all the facts are properly sourced and otherwise relevant. The phrase "anti-gun advocacy groups" is clearly neutral, but unnecessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

"Assault weapon" is a term created by gun manufacturers and used by the gun press. The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons 2007 ISBN 0896894983. To pretend otherwise is willful ignorance, and in this article it's POV-pushing. I'm going to put back a common-sense definition in the lead. Leave the spin to somewhere else. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. This article needs lots of work, and that's a good start. Lightbreather (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

How about we go by WP:LEAD and make it a summary of the article. The term was put into widespread use by a politician, Art Agnos, and the article states this. As Lightbreather states, the article needs work and per WP:LEAD, the last step in that process is drafting it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The term was put into widespread use by a politician, Art Agnos, and the article states this. No, the article does not state this. Agnos is one of several sources attributed to the term, and no preponderance of high-quality RS supports having Wikipedia say that Agnos put it into widespread use. In fact, do the best-quality sources support calling it a political term? It's just a term - in some cases, a legal term. Lightbreather (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No, not in those exact words, but it traces its first public use to Agnos, can we agree on that? As it being just a term, its been used by politicians far more than it has be the industry. I think one of your Google searches pre-Tban proved that LB. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I believed we (editors of this article) discussed this before our (your and my) Tban. I'm working on a couple other articles right now, too, but I suggest we review some of those conversations. Lightbreather (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Define it first, then get into the history of the term. "An assault weapon is generally defined as a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine and one or more additional features, such as a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or barrel shroud, respectively." You can't say that's a false definition. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"Pistol" is a term used to define a handgun

In the United States, "rifle" is a legal and political term used in firearms laws to define and restrict specific firearms.

"United Sates" is a political and legal term used to define and limit a North American nation.

This is a easy way to write great lead sentences. Instead of writing about the topic itself, first characterize it as merely a "term". 162.119.231.132 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

In the United States, assault weapon is a legal and political term used in firearms laws to define and restrict specific firearms. Definitions usually include semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud.

I don't see any consensus around here for that version. Are we writing about guns or about terms? 162.119.231.132 (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. I have gotten used to accepting "term" language in gun-control articles here on Wikipedia because I have been outnumbered for so long by editors who insist that we must present these things as terms instead of what they are. Your examples illustrate the point perfectly. I think it would be much better, as a reflection of what the majority of high-quality RS say, to lead with the simplified:

An assault weapon is generally defined as a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine and one or more additional features, such as a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or barrel shroud, respectively.

Leave the semantics for later. Lightbreather (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The lede of an article is supposed to summarize the concept and contents of the article as a whole. If you look at the article body, it is clear that it is describing the concept of what an "assault weapon" is in its legal and political context in the United States. Given the divisive and charged nature of the term, edits made to sway the introduction framing of the first sentence of the lede more to one sides liking or the other are ill advised and unproductive. The POV-biased attempt in recent months by some to define it as propaganda used by anti-gun advocacy groups to restrict firearms is one example. Similarly, trying to define an assault weapon as a particular de facto "thing" in and of itself before proceeding on to the legal and political aspects gives the appearance of one side trying to frame the debate again at the onset. There is very little cultural and collective agreement in the nation on exactly what an assault weapon "is" and this is reflected in the sourcing. In the United States, the term's primary meaning flows from its legal and political context, hence the article is written accordingly, hence the lede reflects this. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the lede does and should reflect that the meaning flows from its legal and political context. And, this context is different in each state and under now-expired Federal laws, too. This is about all that can be said. It is not solely about semi-automatic firearms, for, in California, single-shot, bolt-action .50 BMG rifles are always considered assault weapons, because they are legally classified as such. (The "semi-automatic" descriptor dates back to the now expired Federal assault weapons ban.) Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Miguel Escopeta: I'm under the impression that California does not define .50 BMG rifles as assault weapons, and instead bans them separately, using the same or similar restrictions. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

A distinction with little difference, as the same form is used for registering both by the state, with no distinctions existing on the form: see here. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The end result is the same since they are both banned, but it is correct to say that a .50 BMG is not legally classified nor defined as an assault weapon in California. On my next edit, I will tweak the article slightly to clarify that. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I have tweaked it a bit further. The ambiguity in California's law was done for a reason, such that if Assault Weapons became legal, then .50 BMG Rifles would still be illegal. On the other hand, if .50 BMG Rifles became legal due to Second Amendment grounds, then Assault Weapons would still be illegal. We should probably maintain the same ambiguity here. Further tweaking would be fine, with appropriate sources, of course. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think your logic on the ban's legislative purposing/reasoning is correct, but maintaining the ambiguity here on Wikipedia does not follow; legally and technically, .50 BMGs are not assault weapons, hence if we're going to mention them here on the "assault weapon" article, we should be specific for the reader's understanding. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Under California Law, .50 BMG Rifles are Assault Weapons,except when they are not.  :-) This might come about from a future court ruling, of course. At the present time, though, they are legally indistinguishable under existing California Law. Further tweaks would be fine, of course. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no consensus for this version of the lead: "In the United States, assault weapon is a legal and political term used in firearms laws to define and restrict specific firearms." The text I edited in is much more direct and doesn't try to assume a POV in the lead: "An assault weapon is generally defined as a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine and one or more additional features, such as a flash suppressor, pistol grip, or barrel shroud." If someone has a good source saying an assault weapon is not a firearm then let's see it. Felsic (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It is going to be hard to find a source that says a weapon is not a weapon. [1] Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Then why do you keep reverting to a lead sentence which says that? If there's no source then it shouldn't be in the article. An assault weapon is a firearm. The lead's gotta say that much, at least. Felsic (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Assault weapons are not specific firearms, except as defined in specific jurisdictions. "Assault weapon" is a purely legal and political term. If a guy from outside the US wants to know what an assault weapon is, and comes to Wikipedia, then we should clearly define it as being a legal and political term, not as some specific firearm, for it isn't. What POV issue is there in defining it as it is? A pump action shotgun with a revolving magazine is an assault weapon, in California. But, the same shotgun in Florida is not an assault weapon. Readers want to know what an assault weapon is. We owe them an understanding of what they are. But, they are not specific firearms, except in specific jurisdictions, sometimes even in counties and cities within states, with different definitions than what is defined under state law. It is a very confusing legal and political jungle. The readers should be provided with enough data to decide for themselves. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Show me the sources that say an assault weapon is a term and not a firearm. Felsic (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Here's one: There are several places in this article that explains that Assault Weapon is a term, not a specific firearm. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Good thing you found that. I've added it to the lead so that the "term" is defined more correctly. It doesn't exist just to "define and restrict" guns. It was created to market them. Felsic (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Commercial term?

I noticed that the lede has been changed to say that "assault weapon" is a commercial term in addition to being a legal and political one. While we've got a source (Philip Peterson) saying that the term originated in the industry (presumably back in the 1980's I'm guessing?), I'm not aware of any commercial use of the term after the federal ban started. Do we have any sources saying that "assault weapon" is still in use as a commercial term after 1994? Or perhaps any evidence of the firearms industry commercially selling "assault weapons" today? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons, Fifth Edition Paperback – January, 2000 [2] :Gun Digest Buyer's Guide To Assault Weapons September 30, 2008) [3]

Gun Digest is an industry fan magazine-type publication. It ain't gonna publish a buyers guide to weapons that buyers can't buy. Felsic (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a good fan magazine-type publication; if you read the link, it says "This is the latest word on true assault weaponry in use today by international military and law enforcement organisations" and the cover matches the statement. In the lower left hand corner, the cover also has a box saying "Test Fire Reports: Full-auto rifles, submachine guns, etc." The assault weapons contemplated in this Wikipedia article, however, are civilian versions, not the models in use by the military and law enforcement that have full-auto rifle configuration, submachine guns, etc. Do you have any links to items that show the firearms industry itself is commercially marketing civilian firearms as "assault weapons" to consumers? Anytime in the 20 years after the manufacturing ban started would be fine. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Find it yourself. There's no expiration date on sources. If the "good" publication has a different definition then we oughta include that too. Felsic (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

If there is no evidence of the firearms industry commercially marketing firearms to civilians as "assault weapons" in the past twenty years, then we're not going to be able to assert that "assault weapon" is a "commercial term" currently used to market them to civilians in the lede. Do you have any sources you can come up with to substantiate the claim, before I revert this WP:BOLD change back to the prior version of the lede? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You're gonna revert material with a perfectly good source because you think that source is too old? Are you planning to do that everywhere on Wikipedia or just this one sentence? I dunno where you saw the word "currently" - I can't find it anywhere in the article. Or are you assuming that it's implied here and everywhere else that doesn't have a time-defined - "California is currently on the West Coast of the United States" - "A rifle is currently a long firearm" - "Physics is currently a branch of science." Let's make sure we've got recent sources for all those too, Felsic (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The source you provided is not "too old" - it's dated well after than ban. However, the source you cite does not establish that the firearms industry uses the term "assault weapon" to commercially market these types of weapons (semi-automatic, high capacity magazines, etc. etc). It is my understanding that the industry avoids the term completely, as its customers tend to reject the term (for the political and legal reasons explained in the article). Do you disagree? If so, just provide the sourcing. If not, we can't have the lede claiming that an assault weapon is a commercial term used to define firearms marketed to civilians, because "is" means currently, not decades ago (i.e., "was"). Do you understand what I'm getting at now? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You're getting into OR territory. Find a source that says it's a former usage and then you can say it's a former usage. You're the one making the claim. The current lead just summarizes the source, which is what were supposed to be doing around here. Not making up new rules that say anything 20 years old isn't valid anymore. Felsic (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is saying "anything 20 years old isn't valid anymore". However, it is clear that the sourcing provided does not back up the contention that the term "assault weapon" is currently being used to market these types of firearms to civilians (that ended more than 20 years ago). WP:BURDEN says that all content must be verifiable, and the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds the material. You made the change adding "commercial term" to the lede, and sentence is styled in the present tense. The policy further says that you must attribute any material that is challenged to a reliable published source, and the citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. I have challenged it, thus you need to point out to me precisely in your sourcing where you believe it substantiates your claim that the term "assault weapon" is currently ("is" in the present sense) a "commercial term" being used to market these types of firearms to civilians. Are you going to do that? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with AC; there are no RS showing it currently being used as a commercial term. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleting sourced info? That's a bad idea. This seems to be a dispute over the meaning of the word "is". Felsic (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the lead sentence can be made more neutral by just saying that "assault weapon" is a term, and not trying to define what kind of a term it is. If the term is used for commercial purposes, as well as for purposes of banning or restricting certain firearms, that can be covered in the body of the article. Similarly by not saying in the lead sentence that it's a political term, we're making the lead more neutral. The lead sentence has a long history of different adjectives being added or deleted, but for these reasons I think it's better not to have any adjectives. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality is a very good thing; I too have watched this article for a long time, and have noticed editors invariably show up who can't seem to resist pushing the lede in a pro-gun rights or pro-gun control direction based on the way they want to frame the issue. The latest round in recent months started with an attempt to define "assault weapon" as a propaganda term used by anti-gun activists to restrict firearms (which rightly got one editor topic banned), followed by an attempt to downplay it's even a term in the American legal and political sense in order to recast it as a de facto "thing". The entire article underscores how the term is a variable legislative restriction, with little collective political agreement, hence the longstanding lede accurately summarized the subject. The recent change shifting the emphasis in the prime sentence from being a restriction to marketing (and a commercial aspect that has been non-existent for decades) struck me again as being more maneuvering. However, I'm actually inclined to let the latest change stand (your edit here), and will instead flip the ordering of the 2nd and 3rd sentences to ensure the legislative restriction aspect is the next fact in the sequence. I'll make that edit in a minute, then step back while other editors digest these changes and post their opinions on whether or not we're on a better track. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Weapons are things. That's how this article ought to describe them. The point here is to inform readers, not confuse them. Tell them what an assault weapon is. Then get into the controversy. Felsic (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

While there is always a place for WP:BOLD edits, you need to seek consensus for making major changes like this first. You already knew it was opposed and you left a notice on my talk page showing that you know this article is under discretionary sanctions, hence unilaterally making opposed changes without consensus is considered disruptive. In the interim, please continue to lay out your case here on the Talk Page and invite other editors to comment. Weapons are things, but in the case of the body text of this article, the focus is clearly on the American legal and political term. Most of the reliable sourcing used in this article underscores that point and shows that it is controversial; you might do well to read through most of the citations to get an appreciation of it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you claiming that this discussion represents a consensus?[4] I don't see it. Felsic (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

My edit summary says "please observe consensus building procedures", meaning you need to build consensus for your change first. Perhaps you're not familiar with WP:BRD either. Are you having trouble understanding my edit summary? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding why you think this requirement for consensus building doesn't apply to your edits. I'm having trouble understanding why you delete sourced text. And I'm having trouble understanding why the only allowable POV for this article is the NRA's. Felsic (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the one making key changes to the long standing state of the article lede; you are. Some of your changes have been opposed, hence you need to build consensus for the changes you want to make, not me. It doesn't work the other way around. If you're having trouble understanding that, please seek out counsel from another editor you trust and get their input. With regard to your statement that I'm "deleting sourced text", I honestly don't know what you're talking about; you should post a diff, or specify precisely what it is that I've allegedly deleted. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Where's the consensus for your text? Felsic (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not "mine"; what you see in the article is the status quo, the end result of many edits by many editors. The relevant question here is not "where's the consensus for the status quo?", but "where's the consensus for the (opposed) changes?" You don't appear to be inclined to believe me, so you should seek counsel from an editor you trust and ask them to explain it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's the explanation. Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling I don't have time for this crap. Felsic (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to read that essay a little closer. Did you overlook the part in the lede about substantive objections? Stonewalling takes place when there are no substantive objections, and the editor doing the reverting has no argument to make. I've made my argument clear, and it's here for other editors to examine and discuss. Still disagree? Discuss this with someone you trust to give you a fair answer. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

We're arguing over the definition of "is"? Hey, Bill Clinton, can we get your help over here?

So long as we make it clear that it is a commercial term as well as a political and legal term, then it ain't bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felsic (talk • contribs) 16:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The term definitely had commercial use before the assault weapons ban of 1994. This was because the industry had experienced a slump in hand gun sales in the 1980's and wanted to use a new description to sell civilian look-alike copies of military weapons that were actually semi-automatics. After the ban got passed, it became illegal for firearms manufacturers to make them, hence after 1994 the industry dropped the term entirely. Even after the federal ban ended in 2004, the industry has not returned to using that term and it's easy to see why. For more than 20 years now, the usage of the term "assault weapon" is entirely legal and political, with no commercial or marketing aspects. Do you agree with these statements, or do you contend that these types of firearms are still being marketed by the industry to civilians as "assault weapons"? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Not interested in a talk page debate. Show me your sources. Felsic (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source showing that the firearms industry marketed "assault weapons" to civilians after the federal government passed legislation twenty years ago making it illegal to make them? How could they market "assault weapons" to civilians if they were't even allowed to manufacture or sell them? Besides defying all logic and rational credibility here on the Talk Page, what are your sources exactly? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I take it that you can't find a logical response to this, a sign that maybe you should rethink your assumptions. In the interim, I noticed the source you wanted to use to add commercial marketing to the lede in present tense contained this: "After the passage of the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons, Mr. Peterson said, the gun industry moved to shame or ridicule anyone who used “assault weapon” to describe anything other than firearms capable of full automatic fire." Given that it's in your own source on how the industry reacted, how do you reconcile that? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The answer is in your question: After the passage of the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons... Before that, there was no concerted effort to label "assault weapon." Lightbreather (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Your comment is difficult to decipher, so you may want to clarify your point. Are you in agreement that the industry stopped trying to market certain types of firearms to civilians as "assault weapons" after 1994, or do you take the position that they have continued to do so up until the present? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

AzureCitizn - you're the one claiming that the usage is obsolete, so the burden is on you. Which is where this thread has been circling since it started. Felsic (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You're not addressing the issue Felsic. How can you maintain that the industry kept using the term to market firearms to civilians after 1994 when your own source says the industry moved to shame or ridicule anyone who used the term "assault weapon" after 1994? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Answer "C"

Folks, isn't it both? The article states that it came into widespread use as a political term in 1985 by a politician, Art Agnos. But obviously its been adopted by the media and "industry" in general. A Google shopping search shows that a company uses the term as a name for one of their automotive products of all things. I remember making the case recently that a term was a "neologism" because it had not made it into popular use, but this term seems to have gained pretty wide acceptance if its being used in marketing for car parts. My 2 cents... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You've got that right. Has anyone got a source that this politician was the first to use it or is that just our own original research? Felsic (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't actually say that Agnos was the first to use it, it just reports that he used it when introducing legislation in the California State Assembly. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of neutral and reliable secondary sources pinpointing just exactly how it all got started, or who used it first. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was pretty careful when I drafted that section. I knew that Agnos was not the first, but it started getting more attention after he used it. Politics and politicians kind of work that way. We do need to pay careful attention to the timeline for the term and not just focus on its recent use and/or misuse. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, a chronological timeline in the article that laid out the evolution of the term and the changes might be really useful, if only quality sources could establish what it was. If you look at all the recent material, the one thing that stands out the most is that "assault weapon" is the most contentious and disputed term of all the loaded language in the rights vs control debates. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk)

Modern sporting rifle

Modern sporting rifle is the same thing with a different name. Oughta just merge 'em. Felsic (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Disagree: you can have a ban-compliant AR-15 that is a MSR without being an AW. The two terms have some overlap, but it is not complete, especially given the major disagreements over what an AW is among different jurisdictions. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Disagree: Yeah, I'm with Faceless Enemy on this one. There are quite a few shows on the Outdoor Channel that showcase MSR's used in competition that are rather "fancy looking", but hardly military in nature or use. My wife thinks that many of the "hot pink" parts are cute... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not even about use - there are guns like these that are MSRs while being specifically designed not to be AWs. There's also some other rifle that I saw once but can't remember the name of - it takes AR-15 uppers and magazines, but has a non-pistol grip lower and stock. Not an AW, but definitely a MSR. Likewise, you have stuff like replica (semi-auto) Thompson guns and M1 carbines with flash hiders or bayonet lugs that are AWs, but not "modern." A Remington Model 8 with a muzzle brake or flash hider is an AW in some jurisdictions, but it could be over 100 years old. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, those are some ugly guns, but I get your point. I think together, we made our case. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

So we're making decisions based on an anonymous editor's pink rifle? Gimme a break.

• Gun-rights advocates prefer the term modern sporting rifles.

AR15s are assault weapons and they are modern sporting rifles. Same thing. Felsic (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

All AR-15s are MSRs, but not all AR-15s are AWs. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if it were that easy, but it isn't. If you're claiming that every firearm based on the AR platform is an "assault weapon", then my reply is that you just don't know what you're talking about. That's like saying that every engine built using a Chevy V8 smallblock is a "racing engine" or that every tool that consists of a "big piece of metal stuck on the end of a stick" must be a shovel. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As someone who works in the industry, "assault weapon" doesn't give you any specifics on the firearm. An M1-carbine with a folding stock meets enough points to be an "assault weapon." For the sake of clarity, and to make Wikipedia as factually correct, this merge needs to occur.Dreg102 16:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreg102 (talk • contribs)

@Dreg102: you just said the two terms were different. Why would we merge them? Something can be an AW without being a MSR, and vice versa. They are conceptually different as well - one is a marketing term for certain firearms, and the other is a legal term for different firearms. There is some overlap, but certainly not enough to justify a merge. Faceless Enemy (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Those who don't know anything about firearms use the term when they are refering to a modern sporting rifle. A MSR is any rifle based upon the AR-15 platform. When any source refers to "assault weapons" they are referring to a modern sporting rifle. AW is a political term, and used to market gun control. Dreg102 01:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY

I would like to suggest that we temporarily pare the lead down to bare bones, finish improving the article, and then finish the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Lightbreather (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Could not agree more!! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I definitely disagree. "Lead follows body" is a suggestion for one possible way to write write a better article. As it says right at the top of the page, it's "not a Wikipedia policy or guideline". Let's not use it as an excuse to make the article worse instead of better. If the current version of the lead, for this or any article, is a good summary of the subject, but does not correspond to what's in the body, then the answer is to make the body better, not to make the lead worse. (This statement is not an endorsement of the current version of the lead section of this article.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 06:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Disagree: As Mudwater says, why bother going backwards? Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Legislative definitions

Right now we have "Common attributes used in legislative definitions of assault weapons include:

• Semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine
• Folding or telescoping (collapsible) stock, which reduces the overall length of the firearm
• Pistol grip, whether rifle, shotgun, or pistol
• Bayonet lug, which allows the mounting of a bayonet
• Threaded barrel, which can accept devices such as a flash suppressor, Suppressor, compensator or muzzle brake
• Grenade launcher
• Barrel shroud, which prevents burning of shooter's arm or hand as a safety device."

This isn't comprehensive, and it seems to apply purely to rifles. Is it worth my time to compile a more exhaustive list of features that have been used to define assault weapons under various federal, state, and local laws? If so, I'm going to cite the laws/regulations themselves. Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think this is the article to detail every law/regulation. This article, IMO, should give common attributes and let the "law" articles give the derails. Lightbreather (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Right now we don't even do that - pistols and shotguns are left out entirely. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)