Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

List of named, banned weapons in tabular format per peer review

Per StarryGrandma peer review of 25 OCT 2013, 3rd bulleted item under "Criteria," I have created a table of the named, banned weapons from AWB 1994. Reviewer said: "The list of banned weapons would look better as a table than a bullet list. Try to minimize bullet lists in articles. The 1999 brief summary from the NIJ is a good reference for this." Prior formal review (2007) said, "In general the article is too listy, the lists in the body of the text should be converted to prose for a smoother read."

Feedback? OK to replace list in article?

Name of firearm	Preban federal legal status	Examples of legal substitutes
Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (AKs) (all models)	Imports banned in 1989	Norinco NHM 90/91
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil	Imports banned in 1989	Uzi Sporter
Beretta AR-70 (SC-70)	Imports banned in 1989
Colt AR-15	Legal (civilian version of M-16)	Colt Sporter, Match H-Bar, Target; Olympic PCR models.
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN-LAR, FNC	Imports banned in 1989	L1A1 Sporter (FN, Century)
SWD (MAC type) M-10, M-11, M11/9, M12	Legal	Cobray PM-11, PM-12; Kimel AP-9, Mini AP-9
Steyr AUG	Imports banned in 1989
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22	Legal	TEC-AB
Revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12	Legal

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not following where the "substitute" column came from or what it means. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, North! It came from page 3 of Impacts of the Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96, the brief report SG referred to in her review, which was from the report Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994. Lightbreather (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

My thought would be to drop that column. I did a good look at the table in the source and a quick read and still don't know what they were intending to mean. Seems to be some creative move by the one author. BTW I think that the overall change is good. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, North. On why they included that column, the report said: "The second consideration [of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act] was to limit the impact of the ban on recreational gun use by law-abiding owners, dealers, and manufacturers." It also said "'sporterizing'" a rifle by removing its pistol grip and replacing it with a thumb-hole in the stock, for example, was sufficient to transform a banned weapon into a legal substitute." The column shows "Sporter" models, so it was meant to show legal substitutes for banned weapons? I'm not saying I agree or disagree with those statements, only that's why they included the column... but I don't mind dropping it. Lightbreather (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

They also document the "copycat" weapons mentioned in your proposed background section, but I also think the column should be dropped, as it conflates things which were directly mentioned by the law, with things which were done as responses to the law, so it is not actually substituting just changing the format of the description of the law. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd recommend dropping that column. Nothing that terrible about it, IMHO it's just one source's confusing creative work and more inexplicable/confusing than useful. North8000 (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Strike 'compliance' section

The compliance section actually has nothing to do with compliance with the ban. If information can be developed regarding manufacturers who did not comply with the ban, or civilians somehow obtaining banned weapons during the ban, then it would have some meaning. Currently it's just two quotes about whether the ban really banned what it claimed to ban - which is unrelated to compliance. I recommend striking it. Anastrophe (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Compliance section in its current form, and here is its text (sans citations):

Following the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban in 2004, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action referred to the features affected by the ban as cosmetic. Similarly, the Violence Policy Center released a statement saying, in part, "Soon after its passage in 1994, the gun industry made a mockery of the federal assault weapons ban, manufacturing 'post-ban' assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts."

The Compliance section is meaningful because what manufacturers did to make firearms in compliance with the ban was to make "cosmetic" changes. This fact is not stated elsewhere in the article, and unless it is, I disagree with striking the section. Agree that it needs development, including other compliance issues if they're sourced. Lightbreather (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

If only the section actually said what you interpret it to mean, then yes, it would be meaningful. I've no objection to it being developed, but in its current state, it does not specifically address compliance. It is only two disembodied quotes, with zero actual content from reliable sources discussing compliance. It should be struck until it is actually about what it claims to be about. Anastrophe (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"[T]he gun industry made a mockery of the federal assault weapons ban, manufacturing 'post-ban' assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts" doesn't require our interpretation, and "If only the section actually said what you interpret it to mean" is not civil. For the ?th time, please stop with the "you" statements. Lightbreather (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe (10 AUG 2013): "The fact that manufacturers were able to build guns *in compliance with the law* by altering cosmetic features of the guns, means that cosmetic features were what were banned."

I suggest that the sources stay and Compliance be addressed - here or in the Effects section (renamed as explained below). Lightbreather (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, our current review mentions the Compliance section. The reviewer said its contents don't reflect its title, and she suggests moving it to the Effects section. She goes on to say: "Rename this 'Effect of the assault weapons ban' or 'Impact of the ban.' There was research into the effects before the expiration of the law." I think that's a workable solution. Keep the content, lose the one section, rename the other section. Lightbreather (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"Bundling" sources

I've read thousands of wikipedia articles. I've edited thousands of wikipedia articles. I've never seen multiple different sources "bundled" together so that it appears that there is only one reference for the information being cited. There are currently six sources for this information, and many more could be added, but the point is that this particular word has been a lightning-rod for tens of thousands of words spilt here in talk. When something is contentious, it is normal for multiple sources to be cited to back up the information. I've seen statements in articles with a string of a dozen or more sources attached. That alerts readers that the information sourced is important, and has been carefully vetted by editors, so that there's no misunderstanding, misdirection, misinformation, or misimpression. It also deters drive-by editors from, say, just scrubbing a word from the article that they don't like, because it doesn't look like anyone will notice. I don't recall ever seeing an article where sources are "bundled" so that it appears that there's just one source, when in fact there are many. Perhaps the argument will be readability? Sources are the bread and butter of a good article, lack of sources is the most common problem with articles. I see no reasonable rationale for "bundling" sources. Anastrophe (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the a) citation style, and b) the purpose. For example, in United States v. Lara (a featured article which has appeared on the main page), I have a string cite at fn9, which shows "George E. Hyde, A Sioux Chronicle 46-66 (1993); George Washington Kingsbury & George Martin Smith, 2 History of the Dakota Territory 1192–1196 (1915)." Both the works cited supported the exact matter cited, and the citation style (Bluebook) allows string cites. Another set of examples can be found at Menominee Tribe v. United States, an example of which is fn7, "Treaty with the Menominee, Mar. 30, 1817, 7 Stat. 153; Menominee Tribe of Indians, 388 F.2d 998, 1001 (Ct. Cl. 1967); 2 Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties 138 (Charles J. Kappler ed., 1904)." There it was used to show the statute confirming the treaty, a court case citing the treaty, and a book covering the treaty, all as sources.

I use string cites (or bundling) all the time. It is also approved at WP:BUNDLING, for non-Bluebook citation styles. I don't see an issue with it. GregJackP Boomer! 15:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That may be, and while I'd love to assume good faith, considering the past history surrounding this one, specific piece of information, and that one specific editor cannot seem to stay away from it, and that it gives the appearance of trying to minimize how well cited the information is - I remain skeptical of intent. As well, only this and one other instance of multiple cites were bundled, but others untouched. What is the threshhold for bundling? Two cites? three? Lastly, the cites were bundled under the heading ' "cosmetic" sources'. The word cosmetic in what could be construed as ironic quotes. If one had just read WP:BUNDLE and decided to employ it, I believe it would have been more natural to have written the header as "For the word cosmetic,", just like the examples therein. Am I paranoid? Why yes, I am. Again, considering the history here, it seems exceedingly ill-advised to monkey with this particular information, yet again. Anastrophe (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd call it a nice good faith effort by Lightbreather but lean against bundling. I don't like confusing / making more obscure the "GUI" for readers (1 footnote = 1 cite) or for editors. The latter is the same reason I don't like citation templates. North8000 (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

First, thanks to GregJackP for the thumbs-up. I have restored the bundling, but modified it somewhat - it is to be hoped in a format more pleasing to Anastrophe. As for the quotes, they aren't scare quotes, but standard when referring to a word as a word. Cosmetic sources means the sources are cosmetic, but "Cosmetic" sources means sources for the word "cosmetic." At any rate, rather than revert the bundling, it might have been changed in BRD fashion, which would be a collaborative AGF edit regardless of what one assumes my intentions might be. Lightbreather (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of the grammar at work here, thanks. I didn't suggest using "Cosmetic sources". I suggested, well, exactly what I suggested, so that the word "cosmetic" isn't in quotes that could be misconstrued, since we know the dangers of ironic and scare quotes. I did do BRD, I'm not sure what you're complaining about. As I said, I don't trust your intentions, based on a well documented past surrounding this particular word. I'm curious why you bundled these six, bundled two on Verdugo, but did not bundle others. Inconsistent application added to my concern. I still reject any bundling. I don't see how it improves the article at all. Anastrophe (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Bundling is fine, so long as all multiple sources are bundled throughout. Scare quotes for cosmetic sources are not OK. GregJackP Boomer! 01:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I've explained that they aren't scare quotes (see item #2 here), but if they seem like that to another editor, I think that editor should change them. There is an inactive style page that recommends italics for words as words. Lightbreather (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me - an active style page says italics or quotes, depending. I learned quotes for words as words, but there you go. Lightbreather (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I changed it to italics. GregJackP Boomer! 04:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious why you bundled these six, bundled two on Verdugo, but did not bundle others. Inconsistent application added to my concern. Anastrophe (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I think there is one other sentence with two citations, one with three. I'm not sure, but I think I bundled the three before (they're links to bills), but they were lost in rollback. I could be mis-remembering. Verdugo? Do you mean Navegar? I was practicing doing bundling. If y'all want me to go bundle some other citations, ask me. Two or three don't seem too distracting to me, but three or four and more do. Apparently, it does to others, too, because I didn't invent bundling. Lightbreather (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"I was practicing doing bundling.". I think most would agree it's best not to practice on the live wiki, and instead practice in your sandbox. As I said, inconsistent application added to my concern - again wrt to the history I've already detailed - which puts certain edits by certain editors under intense microscopic scrutiny. I'm sure most editors would agree that the scrutiny is necessary, again in context of the history at play. Hey cool, I didn't use the word "you". Anastrophe (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It is cool, and I appreciate it. Also, I did practice in my sandbox, with the Navegar citations (which were already bundled - by me - but not in a bulleted or line-break format) and with the "cosmetic"/cosmetic citations. Then I moved the results here.

"I'm sure most editors would agree," is speaking for others, which is alarming to me, whether true or not. If one is speaking for others, does he/she have some position of authority? If they're not speaking for others, why speak as if they are? I should think in most cases we editors should speak for ourselves.

I would prefer to move on. Lightbreather (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"I'm sure most editors would agree" is a common colloquial expression, and as most editors are aware, it doesn't mean the speaker is speaking for others, it means that the speaker is expressing his personal impression. This editor is not alarmed by common vernacular, nor is this editor particularly concerned if other editors choose to dramatically conflate the meaning of a common construct for the purpose of faux concern or faux indignation. This editor actually hopes to have a weekend uninterrupted by POV edit pushing in this article. I'm sure most editors would agree that that would be nice. Anastrophe (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree and my concern is real. Please stop speculating about my intentions. Lightbreather (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I said nothing about editor Lightbreather. I did not speculate about editor Lightbreather's intentions. Someone is confused. Anastrophe (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

IMO in recent weeks Lightbreather seems to have shifted into a more cautious approach. The we BOLD on this particular edit but IMHO it could be seen as a non-contentoius area. IMHO we should try /give them a "fresh start" here. Lightbreather, in view of event s a few months ago, it might not be too unreasonable to be concern that on the particular (contended item) that you goal might have been to reduct the visibility of the amount of source-support that there is for the statement/term. Anastrophe, can we try a try-a-fresh start mode where you might express that concern in a low key way and move on to the direct question at hand. And the question at hand here is bundling or not bundling those citations, or whether or not we use bundling in this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• My opinion is to not use bundling. (but I'm not strongly opposed to it) It's somewhat unusual, and on a contentious article, does affect the in line display of the sources and amount of sources. And does scramble the normal reader/editor "GUI" where once cite = one cite. North8000 (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I prefer it, but that is because Bluebook (my preferred citation system) is well suited to it. I'm not married to it though, and can go either way. GregJackP Boomer! 17:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said a couple days ago, I changed the citations to two single followed by a bundle of the others/more. Perhaps this is a good compromise for this article? Up to three source citations singly, four or more list the first two separately and bundle the rest. (GJP changed "cosmetic" to cosmetic. Thanks.) Lightbreather (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment on article in general

In my review I said that the article did not have problems overall with point of view, but that the article lacked organization, and that where things were in the article was awkward and leads to undue emphasis.

The current discussion about the word "cosmetic" is an example of this. More on this below.

Don't be discouraged because a lot is still missing from the article. That's true throughout Wikipedia. We have 4 million articles but only 18 thousand good articles. But an article is expected to grow and improve, and this one appears stuck. I will propose more organizational structure if that will help. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#SPA now deleting/altering talk-page comments that concerns edits to this article and its talk page. Because that is the focus of the ANI discussion, I'm posting this link, to alert interested editors who are not already aware of it. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment on "cosmetic"

Encyclopedia articles are written differently from book chapters, newspaper articles, or magazines article that cover the same topics. For those the author often wants something attention grabbing in early sentences, and readers expect they will be treated to the author's point of view. Encyclopedia articles aren't written that way. They are written for a wide audience, many opinions, many backgrounds in the subject. Think of a kid in New Zealand writing a paper. Provide information that someone in London or Hong Kong would need to understand what is going on.

In this article the very first sentence immediately following the lead paragraph uses a word that seems to be so controversial that it requires multiple quotes in multiple or one large footnote. It doesn't belong in that position in the article.

The word "cosmetic" came under discussion very early in the history of the law, so it is important to include it. It was used in different ways by different people. First it referred to the differences in otherwise similar gun designs that manufacturers targeted to different buyers, those who wanted hunting weapons and those who wanted a military-appearing weapon. There was the implication that the appearance of the weapon itself might increase its use in violence. However commentators often used "cosmetic" was to mean "merely cosmetic", implying that the differences didn't matter and there was no reason to ban weapons based on appearance. In both cases the use of the word can be emotionally loaded, and doesn't belong in the first sentence.

Put it in after the paragraph of description, along with both ways the word was used. Explain that it was used in both ways; don't leave the discussion to the footnotes. It doesn't need all those sources, but I understand this is a word that has given problems in the history of the article. So leave them for now. Whether it is many sources, whether it is bundled doesn't matter at this point in the evolution of the article. The entire rest of the section has no references whatsoever! Get looking things up. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Disagree, emphatically. The word cosmetic is and was used by partisans on both sides of the debate - yes, to varying degrees, but still used bare in the majority of sources. The word, in fact, is not controversial. At all. The "controversy" exists on this talk page, and has been generated by a single editor. There are far more than six sources supportive of the word - sixteen different sources, as I recall, were provided by another editor after some trivial googling. The reason it has six sources is that it was apparently the only way to keep one editor from scrubbing the word from the article. Essentially, it stands as a bargain, since consensus is overwhelming - both amongst editors and the majority of reliable sources - that the features were cosmetic; strong sourcing is the only mechanism available to prevent a single editor from removing information by fiat from the article. A wikipedia article doesn't include information regarding "controversy" that doesn't exist outside of wikipedia; we report on what the reliable sources say, and the reliable sources say nothing little of any controversy surrounding the word "cosmetic". I repeat: the word is not notably controversial - again, multiple sources - both pro-rights and pro-control - have referred to the features as cosmetic. The controversy has been manufactured on this talk page by a single editor. While it would be a horrible slog to go through, I strongly recommend reading the entire history in the archives surrounding this word. And review this editor's edit history, most particularly two instances, a year apart, where this editor simply removed the word by fiat, before becoming genuinely active on the article. There is a problem here. It is not whether the word "cosmetic" is controversial, or its position in the article. Anastrophe (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Here are the two edits Anastrophe referred to:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&oldid=519287567
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=567874306&oldid=567790080

In neither edit was the word "scrubbed" from the article. It was removed from the Criteria section, and left in the Compliance section, since what manufacturers did to comply with the law was to make "cosmetic" changes.

Now let's move on with the CURRENT discussion, because I am NOT the only editor (evidence given below) who has ever questioned this word or, more importantly, how it's used in the article. Lightbreather (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If I read the editors here correctly (who, from what I've seen, mostly just want an accurate, informative neutral article that stays on topic), they see the word "cosmetic" used by folks on both sides of the debate, and consider it informative, and are suspicious that efforts to remove are POV. The reason why both sides have been using the word it is that objectively speaking, about the only thing more "powerful" about banned configurations is a larger magazine size, and that is an attribute of an attachment (the magazine) rather than the firearm. Knowledgeable folks on the banning side tend to say "cosmetic" to say that it didn't go very far and prefer expansion into banning features that would take in more everyday firearms. "Anti-banning" folks say it to say that it invents a non-existent class of firearms, deliberately sowing confusion with the actual (already illegal) military firearms and inventing a "type" of firearm whose defining "distinctions" are only cosmetic. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Whew! If so, put some of this content in the article, which needs more content. I only said not right in the first sentence of that section, since its a commentary on the description, not the description itself. And to put in more about it, not less. I thought the cosmetic difference was the stock mostly. What about adding a picture of a comparable sporting rifle as comparison? That would make it clearer. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You make excellent points, StarryGrandma. Use of the term is controversial. Even if it has been used by opponents and (some) proponents of gun control, they've used it to support different arguments. When other sources chose or choose not to use the word, that choice means something. Then there are the reliable, verifiable sources who have expressly disputed its use (sources 9,10,11). Further, one can study this article's Archive 1 and Archive 2, plus this discussion and others on the assault weapon talk page, for more proof that it's use is controversial. (Unless maybe one wants to argue that every editor who has disputed how it's used in this and other articles is not a good-faith editor.) In other words, to say that the word is used by opponents and (some) proponents and therefore makes it "The" authoritative qualifier for the word "features," and that mentioning the controversy is tantamount to POV pushing is untrue.

And like you, I don't object to its use, but its use so early in the article and without explaining the controversy. Calathan mentioned this, too, in his comments on Oct. 1 (a few paragraphs down; starts with "I noticed this article linked from ANI...") Much of this repeated conflict could be minimized by putting the ban in context and presenting its basic provisions before launching into the details currently presented immediately after the lead. Lightbreather (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Lightbreather. While I wouldn't call the first two of those three "sources" (they are advocacy pieces by pro-ban advocates, and IMHO weqasel-worded) I think that they do reinforce that there is some dispute with the term "cosmetic". (BTW, these was also some support for the "cosmetic" characterization (albeit without that word) by pro-ban persons in there as well. I don't know where that leaves us. On things like this I tend to say "provide facts, and when in doubt, dial back on characterizations" but I think that some summary of this aspect is useful and informative. North8000 (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that the Provisions have been moved ahead of the Criteria. I don't understand the rationale, regardless of the peer review. What sense does it make to explicate on the manner in which Xa is banned, before explaining exactly what Xa actually is, and why Xa is actually just cosmetically different from other Xbcdefghijk that are not banned?

"The Federal Hawley-Jensen control valve ban"

"Provisions: The law bans any valve identified by the law as a Hawley-Jensen control valve, as well as any stopcocks, flanges, or other accessories to the Hawley-Jensen control valve."

"Criteria: This law defines Hawley-Jensen control valves as those valves that appear similar to unregulated control valves. A Hawley-Jensen control valve provides back-pressure moderation of flammable fluids. Hawley-Jensen control valves perform the same function as other back-pressure moderated control valves of flammable fluids, but are cosmetically different from other back-pressure moderated control valves. The actual functional features of the Hawley-Jensen control valves are identical to other control valves. This law bans only Hawley-Jensen control valves".

Makes no sense to me. We should explain what is being banned before we go into the details of how whatever it is is banned. Anastrophe (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a fallacious argument to me. Lightbreather (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Which fallacy would that be, specifically? Before one talks about actions pertaining to X, one has to define X first, if the definition of X isn't patent. Well, one doesn't have to, but it's clumsy, confusing, and poor writing if one does so. Anastrophe (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Curiously, the edit that moved the provisions before the criteria used an edit summary stating "Moved here to after lead per peer reviews Oct. 1 and Oct. 25". Can you provide a link to the Oct 1 peer review? The Peer review linked to at the top of was submitted Oct 24, and nowhere states that the provisions should precede the criteria. Anastrophe (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Link to Calathan's Oct. 1 review above. Formal request for peer review dated Oct. 24, review dated Oct. 25. I just finished supper and am now visiting with my houseguest. Plan to resume discussion tomorrow. Lightbreather (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Calathan's comments were not part of peer review. Neither did his comments suggest that 'provisions' should be before 'criteria', only that the placement of information within criteria wasn't so great. I suggest putting Criteria back before provisions, where it belongs in the logical flow. I'm not going to do it, even though the current order is obviously wrong, because I don't want to be accused of edit warring. Anastrophe 03:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC) (A's sig copied here because I broke his comment in two when replying to this first part Lightbreather (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC))

I didn't think so at first either, but another editor said they were part of a review and linked to a discussion here on Oct. 1. I have re-moved the Provisions section back to after the Critera section per SG's request. I'm also hoping that she'll sketch an outline of how she thinks the sections should be ordered (including any to-be-developed sections). Lightbreather (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That said, I should note that my comment immediately after Calathan's in that thread explicitly agreed that more in-depth discussion of the controversy around the word "cosmetic" was needed. So, lest I be accused of being quietly hypocritical and hoping nobody notices, I'll aver that it appears I'm a hypocrite, when comparing those comments with my arguments above that there 'really is no controversy'. The controversy is whether the cosmetic differences make the weapons more dangerous, and whether it was "wrong" for manufacturers to comply with the law by making cosmetic changes that rendered the weapons 'not banned'. Yes, there are sources that say that the features were not cosmetic - but they are a small minority (setting aside that reality tends to trump belief, and the banned weapons were no more lethal than non-banned weapons). It became a talking point, and essentially a point of embarrassment for early supporters of the ban, when they realized that the ban actually accomplished very little. But I digress. I repeat however, that the majority of sources - the overwhelming majority of sources on both the pro-rights and pro-control side agree that the features that were banned were cosmetic, and that is what we base the article on. I know of nobody in the US, before, during, or after the FAWB, who was bayonetted to death, or of any attempts to bayonet someone to death. Ignoring that the ban didn't ban bayonets. Only bayonet mounts (which could easily be circumvented with Duct Tape). Anastrophe (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Having gone into this in great detail before, I don't wish to again right now except to say: I disagree that the controversy is what you say it is (above), and I disagree that the "overwhelming majority" of pro-gun and pro-control sources agree that the banned features were cosmetic. As someone said months ago, a Google search and count of links with "cosmetic" and "features" in the same source isn't probative. Lightbreather (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

And as was pointed out back then, it is not a raw google search at play here. The sixteen cites that were generated were each different. In fact, this editor hasn't ever done a raw google search for counts. Because I know that's meaningless. perhaps the better characterization is that the overwhelming majority of sources refer to the features as cosmetic. A possible minority of pro-control sources say they are not cosmetic - that remains to be fully investigated - but as we all know, we don't give undue weight to minority opinions. Anastrophe (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to that discussion, which was about whether or not it was appropriate to include the word in the Criteria section (not whether or not it should be removed from the whole article). One editor said, "16 [sources] was what I came up with in a few minutes. The actual search yielded over 16000!" To which another replied, "Raw google (or other search engine) counts are not considered probative, however. There's far too much noise that gets scooped up even with the best filtering of the results."

I think I've asked this before, but am I to understand that for a source to count as not-cosmetic they actually have to say "not cosmetic"? If they say simply "features" or "certain features," do we as editors assume that they count them as "cosmetic," too? Is that the editorial consensus on Wikipedia, or on this article? Lightbreather (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If a source is being used to show "cosmetic" is wrong, it must specifically address the cosmetic issue by saying not-cosmetic or something. However, if a preponderance of sources describe the features without the "cosmetic" modifier, then our primary description should shift to match. However, we must be very careful of WP:OR and WP:RS/AC on this issue (in both POVs). I would possibly support breaking the first sentence up by saying "semi automatic firearms that possess certain features. These features have been described as cosmetic by both gun rights advocates, and gun control advocates, but some gun control advocates have disagreed with this characterization." We could then even have a small section with the reasonings of why people consider them cosmetic (and as North? pointed out, pro/anti both come to the word cosemtic, via different logic), along with a statement of who disagrees with that assesment. (Within this section, WP:WEIGHT may be problematic, as neutrally describing each sides views may result in WP:UNDUE coverage of them. This problem extends to the overall article, where it would be easy to unbalance the article with an in depth discussion of if the features were cosmetic or not, which is really irrelevant to the ban itself and which firearms were actually banned. Due to these potential issues, I could easily see myself falling into the camp of "should not be included" as well, so any additions in this direction would need to have a good consensus developed before insertion. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:VERIFIABILITY says, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." I like your suggestion, but would say: "semi automatic firearms that possess certain features. These features have been described as 'cosmetic' by opponents and some proponents of the ban, but some disagreed with the term." Lightbreather (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm near-neutral and worn out on the "cosmetic" issue. On one side, both sides have used the term similarly (albeit with opposite goals) and it represents both coverage of what they said and is somewhat informative. On the other hand, I think you've shown that it is contested by some, and also I generally say "when in doubt, avoid characterizations and give information instead". Overall I lean a tiny bit towards keeping it in. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I hear you North, friend. I want to say again, though, that I never pushed for removing the word from the article, but from the Criteria section. Then, I dropped that argument when it was clear that the current editorial majority believes it belongs in that section. My response to that is, if it's going to be in that section, then it shouldn't be in the first sentence, or even the first paragraph. The first sentence currently reads at grade-level 16, the first paragraph at grade-level 15. The section currently tries to introduce "assault weapon," "semi-automatic," "cosmetic," "assault rifle" and "fully automatic" all in the first sentence/paragraph. Talk about conflated meaning! There should be separate, simple paragraph explaining semi-automatic, assault rifle, and fully automatic before introducing the terms assault weapon and cosmetic. And there should be an explanation of who uses cosmetic and why ASAP after introducing that term. Lightbreather (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Those sound like good ideas. I think that some folks have concerns because a few months ago (IMHO and vaguely/briefly speaking) you did a big bundling of work on good ideas with a lot POV shifting work rapid fire on a contentious article. And back then you essentially said that you feel that it has big POV problems (thus saying that it needs a big POV shifting) And concerns about: what's next from Lightbreather? I think that most folks see this as an article that could use improvements (where it sounds like you have some good ideas) and NOT a big POV shifting. May I suggest to everyone a fresh start all around? Including Lightbreather, slowly work in / test fire some of those ideas as edits where they don't collide with a previous conversation. And everybody else, give Lightbreather a fresh start and see how it goes? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I went back through all six archives and searched for the words "bias," "neutral," and "POV," and guess what? I haven't used them nearly as often as one might assume from reading comments about me. In fact, some other editors use them much more than I do. But especially important, I have not made regular, broad criticisms about the whole article. Most of my edits have been neutral or gnome. I absolutely like the fresh start idea. Lightbreather (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

'nuff said. Let's move on, fresh start. North8000 (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Let's start the fresh start by shelving further discussion and edits to the article surrounding "cosmetic". The minor commentary by editors without a dog in this fight isn't so strong that there is any need to change what's already there. It's cited, and I've dropped my arguments about the cite bundling. We are good to go. No further changes to "cosmetic", since it's a hornets nest, it's been discussed ad nauseum, consensus by sources and editors is palpable (remember, consensus doesn't mean that every last editor agrees). There's simply no need, for the N-to-the-Nth time to even be rehashing this. So, all agreed, we can leave the text about "cosmetic" alone, and work on improving other more significant issues with the article, such as the history/background, better explanation of compliance or lack thereof, and more? I'm totally in favor of dropping the discussion on this word, since it's been flogged to death. Anastrophe (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There are no minor editors in this discussion, so no commentary is minor. This is a subject that has come up over and over again, and not on account of any one editor. Also, this is a collaborative process, not a dog fight. Two peers currently question how the word is used in this article. This is not surprising considering that the subject has come up before they or I ever laid eyes on it. The proposal Gaijin made earlier practically matches the changes that were made on Sept. 27 by BRD process - before the rollback.

1. Nov. 12 (Gaijin): "semi automatic firearms that possess certain features. These features have been described as cosmetic by both gun rights advocates, and gun control advocates, but some gun control advocates have disagreed with this characterization."

2. Nov. 12 (Lightbreather): "semi-automatic firearms that possess certain features. These features have been described as 'cosmetic' by opponents and some proponents of the ban, but some disagree with the term."

There is no consensus to leave it as is... there is a consensus to make this small but important change (and only part of what was actually discussed). A fresh start shouldn't be contingent upon giving up an edit that others agree to or with. Also, a fresh start isn't just about my behavior. It's about the whole team's conduct toward each other. Gaijin? North? Lightbreather (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

"There are no minor editors in this discussion, so no commentary is minor." An editor intentionally contrives to warp what I say, which is awfully cute. I mis-phrased it, I meant the minor concerns expressed by those editors - neither of which rise to the level of blaring alarms and flashing lights this talk page has had to deal with going on four months now. Apparently the "fresh start" we are to have is to pretend that four months of discussion on this already settled matter no longer exists, so that we can flog it just a little bit more (translation: endlessly). No. This rises to a new level of disruption - not the immediate, crazy-making disruption of editor Saltyboatr a month ago, but instead disruption festering like a cancer. Here we are - four months later - talking about the word cosmetic, with the insistence that a settled matter isn't settled, because one editor says it's not settled. The peer review, the formal peer review, made no mention of the word cosmetic. And I quote, again: "I don't see that the article overall has problems with point of view. The positioning of some information may be awkward and lead to undue emphasis on it" - emphasis mine. This new discussion of cosmetic has only come about because one editor keeps bringing it up. Enough. Anastrophe (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, on things like this, people (including those who don't want to spend a lot of time figuring it out) like clarity / being committal on exactly what change you are proposing. I.E. exactly what in the current article would be changed and to what. It may seem obvious to you, but even to me (who is somewhat close to this) it isn't. Without that it's like (inadvertently) asking them to write you a blank check. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, North. I'm proposing changing the current first sentence of the Criteria section:

"Within the context of this law, the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic firearms that possess certain cosmetic features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic."

To what Gaijin and I were discussing yesterday:

"Within the context of this law, the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic firearms that possess certain features. These features have been described as 'cosmetic' by opponents and some proponents of the ban, but some disagree with the term."

I don't care if "cosmetic" is in quotes or italics, but I think we should agree which we're going to use in the article when defining words/terms or referring to words as words - and then make the whole article consistent. (I think it uses both styles right now.) Also, I'd prefer to give the three sources given before, but if y'all want to lop one off, I'll lop one. Lightbreather (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to start using quote marks, the top candidate for that list would be "assault weapon", highly controversial because it is used as if it were an actual type of firearm. Unlike "assault rifle" it has no real meaning and so it is subject to having new meanings made up to suit anyone's agenda. For example, the pistol configurations that police routinely carry when they are buying donuts were banned as "assault weapons" under this ban due to magazine size. North8000 (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

absolutely agree. Scare quotes, or scare italics are entirely inappropriate. In the current wording everything is more than adequately cited. In the proposed wording, things are attributed to proponents/opposition. There is absolutely no need to water the word down with quotes or italics (and as North rightly points out, there are MANY other terms orf art in this article that could receive the same treatment). further, Lightbreather, although I could support the new wording, you overstate my position by saying there is not consensus for the current wording. I am perfectly happy where it is, but I would accept a different wording as well. That should not count as a vote against the current consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see them as scare quotes and I've never heard of scare italics, but OK. Forget the quotes or italics then. What about the text, which is what was proposed last night and practically matches what BRD edits accomplished on Sep. 27... before the rollback. Lightbreather (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

They both look OK with me (new and old), the new one slightly better. I'm assuming that you mean to keep the references that are currently in there. I'd consider 2 or those 3 new sources to be low grade (op eds by advocates) I 'spose that they are suitable (albeit primary) to establish the "disputed" statement that they are used with, but it would be nice to stick to higher quality / more objective sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, North. I consider at least two of the pro-cosmetic sources very biased. One, David Kopel's, IS an opinion piece. The other, by Jacob Sullum, puts his every use (12) of "assault weapon" in scare quotes throughout his article. When I brought this up in August, another editor said: "That a reliable source believes something or has a bias does not invalidate that source in any manner whatsoever. Wikipedia's foundation is reliable sources, not editor's opinions as to what the reliable sources do or do not believe." Still, I am willing to drop one of the not-cosmetic sources if it will help to keep the peace.

Thanks again for proposing a fresh start! I appreciate it. Lightbreather (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Bias does not make sources unreliable. Wikipedia:BIASED. WSJ and Reason are both clearly reliable sources, that have strong editorial controls. (though the opinion is still an opinion, but the facts presented in the opinion are still facts backed by an RS). On the other hand, the "not-cosmetic" sources are WP:PRIMARY WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources, which dramatically reduces their value as a reliable source. In this particular case, they may be acceptable, because we are using the source to merely source "person X who self published Y, said Z". In particular those sources are unacceptable for anything other than statements about what those people themselves believe. Any statements about 3rd parties, or objective facts are not reliable. As the VPC is otherwise a notable commenter on gun issues, we can use their primary self published documents to source their own opinions (which must be presented as opinions), but nothing else. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, responding only to Lightbreather) Yes, I 'spose those are biased too. But they appear to be more fact laden vs. assertion / appeal to emotion-laden. BTW, I tend to put quote marks around the word "assault weapon" (attribute it as being in the context of a particular conversation or law), but I don't do it to make or emphasize a point, I do it because I would consider a statement without those to be an implicit statement that such defines a type of gun, which is a false statement, and I don't want to make a false statement. "Cosmetic" is more a matter of opinion. On the general note, the official wp:rs specifies some "floor" criteria and does not actual reliability. In practice (such as at the reliable source noticeboard) criteria defining actual reliability (e.g. objectivity and expertise with respect to the item which cited it) tend to get looked at. Since the statement that they are supporting is merely the "disputed" statement, I don't have an objection to either of them in that context. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42 or North: Would one of you please make the edit? Sue brought me before ANI while you two and I were close to an agreement. It is the addition of a simple, sourced WP:VERIFIABILITY sentence - and a restore of a BRD edit of Sept. 27. I am not trying to remove the word from this section, just to say that reliable sources disagree with it. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"These features have been described as 'cosmetic' by opponents and some proponents of the ban, but some disagree with the term." This is inaccurate. It is biased. It's not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The term has been used by non-partisan sources primarily. It is not just opponents of the ban who characterized the features as cosmetic. The VPC, a proponent of the ban, referred to the features as cosmetic. We can bastardize it if we like - "These features have been described as 'not cosmetic' by some proponents of the ban, but opponents disagree with that description". However, we need to be accurate and not give undue weight. This is an accurate wording, without forcing partisan characterizations on it: "These features have been described as 'cosmetic'; a small minority disagree with the term."Anastrophe (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"These features have been described as 'cosmetic'; ...." removes "by opponents and some proponents of the ban" Why? A count of the sources show that many reliable, verifiable opponents of the ban use "cosmetic" when talking about it, and also that some proponents use the word when talking about it, too. Further, saying that "a small minority disagree with the term" implies that a "large majority" agree with the term. The evidence presented does not support that conclusion, unless one simply compares a count of "cosmetic" vs. "not cosmetic" sources and ignores all the sources who simply don't use the word. And it is WP:OR to assume that not using the word means support of or opposition to the term. This counter-proposal by Anastrophe does not improve the article, it simply presents the same POV it currently has but in a different way. Lightbreather (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no, my proposal doesn't "remove" "by opponents and some proponents of the ban", it leaves out editor Lightbreather's attempts to add a characterization that it as a partisan split. I'm not basing it on raw count - however, when the vast majority of sources present one perspective, and a very small minority present another perspective, you can't just say that it doesn't matter. The large majority of reliable sources characterize them as cosmetic. A few reliable, non-self-published source have characterized the features as "not cosmetic". One of those sources has characterized them as both cosmetic and non-cosmetic, so we must reject that source completely since it's inconsistent. Hell, even president Clinton characterized the features as cosmetic in a Radio address during his term (read transcript last night; don't have the URL with me). Editor lightbreather wishes to give undue weight to a small minority opinion. There is no OR on this editor's part, unless reviewing sources now magically constitutes OR. Editor lightbreather's agenda as stated above is to change a neutrally presented POV to give undue weight to a minority opinion from a minority of sources. This matter should simply be shut down at this point, WP:UNDUE has long since passed. Here we are. Four months later. Bargaining over a settled matter. Anastrophe (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe , I believe Lightbreather's argument is that there is some pool of sources which do not take an explicit stance on cosmetic vs non-cosmetic, and just call them "features" or some such, and that those sources must be taken into account when establishing what the majority says. (Ie 100 sources talking about the bill. 90 say "features". 9 say "cosmetic" 1 says "not cosmetic". She thinks we are looking at the 9 vs 1 and ignoring the 90) The policy statement may be true (weighting what sources say that don't address a topic is certainly risking WP:OR), but as those sources have not been provided by her, then no determination can be made either by "counting" (which we all agree is not valid), nor by the individual analysis of each source to see if it is legal/media/academic/activist and primary/secondary/tertiary/etc which would be needed to apply appropriate WP:WEIGHT and develop our consensus. So of the sources we have reviewed, we are indeed in the "vast majority" situation. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin, did your mean 100 vs. 1,000? North8000 (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

indeed. fixed. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's a few sources that say that the features were cosmetic:

That's from multiple points of view as well.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Counting references that use the word cosmetic is not enough. The content of those references and their multiple points of view matter and deserve a place in the article.

Spitzer's article cited does not say the differences are cosmetic. What he says is:

Critics of the proposed new regulations of assault weapons argued that it was difficult to produce an acceptable definition of what constitutes an assault weapon. They also noted that the firing process for many hunting rifles was the same as that of military-style assault weapons, rendering the distinction between legitimate semi-automatic hunting rifles and allegedly illegitimate assault weapons merely cosmetic.

— Spitzer, Robert J. (2012). "Assault Weapons". In Gregg Lee Carter (ed.). Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law (2 ed.). ABC-CLIO. pp. 53–54. ISBN 978-0-313-38670-1.

(By StarryGrandma)

I know that's what he said, that's why I put it there, genius. Now what critics was he addressing? The pro-constitutional side or the anti-constitutional side? Take your time. Make sure you sign in on the proper account before answering, too--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry my signature didn't get copied over. Not addressing critics, describing what they were arguing. Why not put some of this content into the article? StarryGrandma (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, enough time has already been wasted on this article about an expired piece of legislation that served no purpose other than to criminalize and marginalize law-abiding citizens. The anti-freedom goal is clear, they just don't want people to have any firearms period and this bill was an easy way to begin chipping away at that. Feelgood legislation and the epitome of symbolism over substance.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No mater what your opinions are of it, it is still notable and needs an article. Let me remind you that this is not a forum. KonveyorBelt 16:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you got that from. Sure it is notable, but certain people have been displaying an agenda of sorts in trying to twist the facts which in turn takes up the time of other editors who have more important things to work on. This argument has been going on for months. The consensus being that this legislation targetted cosmetic features. The folks who obviously know nothing about the firearms in question want to cherry pick and exclude sources that show how useless this law was with regard to crime.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Konveyor Belt, how should one editor respond when another writes the kinds of things Mike Searson just wrote? He sarcastically called StarryGrandma "genius," and also suggested that she's using multiple accounts to comment here. He has been rude to me before, too. He once said I was too emotional to edit firearms-related pages, which is sexist. (Also, considering how quickly he jumps to anger, it's hypocritical.) The way this discussion is unfolding reminds me exactly of what happened to me when I became active here three months ago. First try some objective arguments, and if your opponent doesn't stand down - attack their character. Lightbreather (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There it goes again. I made no such insinuation that she was using multiple accounts. I was referring to her unsigned comment above. But guilty consciences make the loudest noises, don't they? I don't believe I ever said you were too emotional, just that you did not know anything about firearms. I'm not angry, either, but if you want to believe that, go ahead,--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Make sure you log into the proper account can easily be read as such an accusation imo. If there is a proper account to log into, then there is an implied improper account to log into as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Gaijin. As for the "emotional" issue, here's what was said, and by whom: "Perhaps she could be useful in other areas on Wikipedia, but she is too emotional or too biased to work with anything firearms related." by Mike Searson 03:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC) on ANI, 12 votes down in this discussion.

I realized that some of my comments were based on my erroneous impression that the proposed change was just to add the "some disagree" statement. But now I realized my error and see that it is to also dial back the "cosmetic" sentence itself. I think that that moves me from the "OK with it" to the "mildly oppose as written" column. North8000 (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Photos?

It looks like we can begin working on the article again. I have taken the liberty of reviving this discussion, as it got scrolled into the archives. I hope nobody minds. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Is there in existence, anywhere, a photo of the FAWB being signed into law? I think it would make a nice set of "bookends" if we could have a photo of it being signed into law near the beginning of the article, and then perhaps something similar at the end of the article when it sunsetted. In order to keep NPOV balance perhaps we could have it's supporters in the first one, signing it in, and then at the end perhaps opponents of the ban signing it off, or giving a speech, or what-have-you. (I don't know if there was ever anything done when it sunsetted, but it seems there must have been). --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There's definitely photos out there of the signing. I think that could be added to the article, and wouldn't be POV. I don't know of any specific events that marked the end of the law. I'm not sure that having a second photo to 'balance out' the first could be done in an NPOV way. Too many ways to interpret it. But it was definitely a Kodak moment at the White House when Clinton signed it. And a photo of something other than a gun would be a nice addition to the article. Anastrophe (talk) 05:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The idea of the bookends is to have a photo at the beginning depicting "the beginning" of the ban, and a photo at the end representing the "end" of the ban. And yes, I think photo's of something besides guns will be a net positive. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/PPP-PHOTOS-1994-book2/PPP-PHOTOS-1994-book2-folio-D/content-detail.html Also seems like it should be public domain as a govt photo. Unfortunately pretty low resolution. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Geez, that's right. I was mixing up the AWB signing with the Brady Bill signing. The latter was a Kodak moment; the former, not so much. Anastrophe (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

could also maybe pull a still from here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOY0xSpt6IA and the video itself could be included as an external link Gaijin42 (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting how many times he signed it, and how many different pens he used! Gaijin42 (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Another photo, shortly after the signing. This one features Biden, so may be more symbolic as a bookend since he is involved in the topic again (buy a shotgun) http://www.politico.com/gallery/2012/07/joe-biden-over-the-years/000306-003971.html Gaijin42 (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Lets try one and see if it looks good. We can always take it down if we don't like it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Compromise on cosmetic

As I acknowledged earlier this week, I've been hypocritical on the issue of the word cosmetic. I've vacillated between acknowledging that there is disagreement - even suggesting that the specifics be expanded in their own section - and on the other hand suggested that the sources are so overwhelmingly in the 'they're cosmetic' column that there's no uncertainty to even be considered or mentioned.

That's not right. It's not a fair accounting. Yes, a minority of sources bristle(d) that the features weren't cosmetic. However, the minority accounting does not rise (fall?) to the level of flat-earthers vs round globers. There are reliable sources that show that some take issue with the characterization that the features banned were cosmetic. That there is disagreement is the notable characteristic, not whether the features were/are cosmetic or not. Our duty in writing this encyclopedia is to provide the information impartially, so that the reader may be informed.

'Warm and fuzzy' is not in my online DNA, at least when it comes to political issues. I humbly acknowledge that I have a strong command of the language, and I can wield it fairly ruthlessly, and sometimes cruelly. I have been ruthless and cruel, there's no way to dance around that, and I regret it and I apologize to Lightbreather for it. In my offline existence, I'm mild-mannered, to the point that I've been referred to not infrequently as "laid-back". I'll pause here for the bewilderment to subside.

The salient issue with regard to the criteria section is whether we state baldly as fact-without-uncertainty that the features were cosmetic - as the article currently does - or if make clear that it is not a matter of scientific fact vs fiction, it is instead a matter of political opinion, and not a characterization without uncertainty in the sources. At the same time, based on the extant sourcing, we have to step lightly on overstating one position (cosmetic), while likewise not giving undue weight to what is, in fact, a minority opinion amongst the sources - but the existence of a minority opinion must be acknowledged, because again, it is not at the level of flat-earthers.

All that preamble behind, now to my proposal. I'm not handing this down like God to Moses, I'm just making a proposal - my peers may embrace it, reject it, alter it, and I look forward to whatever becomes of it. It's definitely not perfect, and I'm writing it off top of my head right now, so I expect that the reception will be some mix of all of the above, with refinements to come. Cool beans, that's how wikipedia works.

"Within the context of this law, the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic firearms that possess certain features in common with fully-automatic assault rifles. Fully automatic firearms have long been heavily regulated and restricted in the United States, and were not the subject of this ban. The firearms banned under this law fired one round (bullet) for each trigger pull, as opposed to fully-automatic firearms that fire continuously on a single trigger pull.

Because the banned firearms functioned identically to other semi-automatic firearms that were not banned, many considered the differentiating features to be cosmetic, rather than functional; this remains a matter of some debate."

etc. etc., with later further exploration of the well-sourced disagreement that remains. It acknowledges that it's not a black and white distinction among the sources, while not specifically calling out partisan affiliations, or giving undue weight specifically to the minority opinion. Anastrophe (talk) 06:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"Because the banned firearms functioned identically to other semi-automatic firearms that were not banned, many most considered the differentiating features to be cosmetic, rather than functional; this remains a matter of some limited debate."

To emphasize appropriate weight. Most sources consider the features to be cosmetic, and the debate is rather limited (especially since the law has expired). GregJackP Boomer! 06:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I like where this is going. As a sidebar point, I think that " functioned identically to other semi-automatic firearms that were not banned" is a bit of an overreach in a non-relevant direction, and a mis-fire. While it needs better writing than I'm doing here, the gist of it is that the features defining a banned firearm do not increase the power, lethality / killing capability of the firearm and so are called cosmetic in that respect. North8000 (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. "Because the banned guns fired the same way as other semi-automatic firearms that were not banned, most considered the differentiating features to be cosmetic, rather than functional; this remains a matter of limited debate". Thoughts? I changed 'banned firearms' to 'banned guns' because it sounded awkward to say "firearms fired". Anastrophe (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

"Because the banned guns fired operated in the same way manner as other semi-automatic firearms that were not banned, most considered the differentiating features to be cosmetic, rather than functional; this remains a matter of limited debate". I think this is a little clearer, but I'm not married to it. GregJackP Boomer! 04:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that it deals with the the area that I was clear on. But I also meant to say that main "cosmetic" discussion usually doesn't involve a comparison to non-banned firearms. It is to say that what makes the military weapons more powerful (full auto capability, firing hand grenades etc.) is already absent from civilian use and so that the premise that the ban is addressing features that makes the gun more powerful is false; the features are merely cosmetic. North8000 (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess the "compares to" varies with the "side". When anti-firearm folks use the term "cosmetic", they sometimes do that in the context of comparing to unbanned guns. I.E. they would say since the difference is only cosmetic between the banned guns and grandpa's deer rifle, then we need a broader ban which bans Grandpa's deer rifle. North8000 (talk) 11:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the word "cosmetic" is under discussion again, I thought this would be a good time to reiterate my opinion. The article as currently written has an unintentional pro-gun-rights bias in the use of this word. "Cosmetic" means "external or superficial; pertaining only to the surface or appearance of something". Most groups or individuals who favor an assault weapons ban think -- rightly or wrongly -- that the features of assault weapons are *not* cosmetic. They're not objecting to the superficial appearance of these firearms. On the contrary, they think -- rightly or wrongly -- that the features make these guns functionally more dangerous. The article should be clear that this is a big part of the controversy. Here are three quotes from pro-gun-control groups that could be used as references:

• Violence Policy Center: "Civilian semiautomatic assault weapons incorporate all of the functional design features that make assault weapons so deadly. They are arguably more deadly than military versions, because most experts agree that semiautomatic fire is more accurate—and thus more lethal—than automatic fire. The distinctive "look" of assault weapons is not cosmetic. It is the visual result of specific functional design decisions. Military assault weapons were designed and developed for a specific military purpose—laying down a high volume of fire over a wide killing zone, also known as "hosing down" an area."
• Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (click on Frequently Asked Questions): "Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms. While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile to kill an animal, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to kill as many people quickly, as would be needed in combat. Opponents of banning assault weapons argue that these military-style weapons only “look” scary. Assault weapons look scary and are scary because they are equipped with combat hardware. Combat features like high-capacity ammunition magazines, pistol grips, folding stocks, and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns, are designed specifically to facilitate the killing of human beings in battle."
• Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence: "Assault weapons are a class of semi-automatic firearms designed with military features to allow rapid and accurate spray firing. They are not designed for “sport;” they are designed to kill humans quickly and efficiently. Features such as pistol grips and the ability to accept a detachable magazine clearly distinguish assault weapons from standard sporting firearms by enabling assault weapons to spray large amounts of fire quickly and accurately."

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

What I see is people trying to leave that impression while avoiding specifics on why. And most of the discussions of specific specific features, described features that grandpa's guns also have (semi-automatic, pistol grip, accepts a detachable magazine)North8000 (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You probably know this already, but I'll say it for the benefit of any editors who are reading this. The question we're discussing on this talk page isn't whether the features of firearms legally defined as assault weapons are functional or cosmetic. The question is what the article should say about the about the functional vs. cosmetic part of the controversy. And I think it should say something along the lines of, "Proponents of an assault weapons ban argue that their features make them functionally more dangerous than other civilian firearms. Opponents say that this is incorrect and that the features are merely cosmetic in nature." And expand on that, with references, etc. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I can appreciate what you are saying. None of the three organizations that you listed with the quotes are considered an authority on firearms. I give their claims as much weight as I would give those of a Luddite claiming that the flash of a camera will steal his soul or a tobacco executive saying nicotine is not addictive. However the anti gun people like throwing around the word cosmetic, too.

• From the bedwetters at the VPC: "But immediately after the 1994 law was enacted, the gun industry evaded it by making slight, cosmetic design changes to banned weapons—including those banned by name in the law—and continued to manufacture and sell these “post-ban” or “copycat” guns."
• From the enemies of freedom and shysters at the law center to prevent gun violence: "The two-feature test and the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced."

When they are campaigning to disarm Americans, these features make these rifles capable of spewing death and killing children, blah blah blah. When these deadly features are removed to make a neutered rifle and comply with the very laws that these people campaigned for...then they become a "cosmetic loophole". --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I know that this is not directly for use in the article, but there is a rosetta stone that sorts this out. There is a relatively small group of people who has it high on their priority list to minimize gun ownership. That is the "reason" behind AWB, and what they say is tactics towards that end. And the brass ring is the 80% of Americans who really don't understand this and being either way on guns is not in their top 10 issues. Comments after a mass shooting, deliberate conflation/confusion with military weapons, things being said are merely tactics, not the reasons nor actual points being debated. So when they seek to get some firearms banned, they imply that the banned features make them powerful military weapons. And when they seek to expand a ban into everyday firearms, they say that the differences between the banned firearms and grandpas guns are only cosmetic and so grandpa's guns also need to get banned. The bottom line relevant to here is the anti-gun folks go both ways on the word "cosmetic" and pro-gun folks always say cosmetic. And the anti-gun folks reverse themselves on "cosmetic" depending on the situation, so for them the specific term it is not a matter of fundamental / long term debate. North8000 (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

So getting back to the proposal at hand. It's been discussed a bit, and it's been modified a bit. Mudwater's comments are related, but they don't address whether the proposed text (with modification) is a good starting point towards getting there or not. Here's the proposed text again with the suggested edits:

"Within the context of this law, the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic firearms that possess certain features in common with fully-automatic assault rifles. Fully automatic firearms have long been heavily regulated and restricted in the United States, and were not the subject of this ban. The firearms banned under this law fired one round (bullet) for each trigger pull, as opposed to fully-automatic firearms that fire continuously on a single trigger pull.

Because the banned guns operated in the same manner as other semi-automatic firearms that were not banned, most considered the differentiating features to be cosmetic, rather than functional; this remains a matter of limited debate."

Again, with further expansion on the nature of the debate within the body of the article itself, likely as its own section. This specific text at the top of 'criteria' is intended specifically as a compromise on the text that has been most argued over these last several months. I don't think we need a vote, but I'm not against one either. But I would like to see some kind of compromise text to adequately address the imbalance (however slight) between the current wording and the reality of the debate. Anastrophe (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that you are on the right track. But I think that it needs tweaking to be accurate and informative. I think that saying that "cosmetic" is used only or even primarily in the context to non-banned firearms is incorrect. North8000 (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Understood. The problem from my perspective is keeping it terse; it's terribly easy to go off on lengthy digression/explanation, as the current article tends to do - with both 'criteria' and 'provisions' explaining the difference between semi- and fully-automatic firearms, which isn't necessarily clear.

By the way, I found the text of Clinton's radio address where he refers to 'cosmetic surgery' being used to 'sidestep' the ban. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=53565 Anastrophe (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I definitely like the first paragraph, but in my opinion the second paragraph does not describe the "cosmetic" controversy in a sufficiently neutral way. I think it would be better to replace that with something close to what I wrote in my previous post: "Proponents of an assault weapons ban argue that their features make them functionally more dangerous than other civilian firearms. Opponents say that this is incorrect and that the features are merely cosmetic in nature." — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict, not responding to the last two posts except to note that I totally blew it on "terse" :-) Here's a try. Opponents of the ban say that the features defining the banned firearms do not increase the power or lethality of the firearms nor include the key features of the military versions of the guns and are thus cosmetic. Proponents of the ban have argued that the features are not merely cosmetic, but proponents of expansion of the ban into unbanned firearms argue that the differences between the banned and unbanned firearms are cosmetic. North8000 (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem I see with Mudwater's version is the characterization that - while opponents say the features were cosmetic, proponents of the ban have said both that the features are cosmetic, and that they are not cosmetic, depending on the nature of the argument being made. Since both opponents and proponents of the ban use 'cosmetic', but only proponents say 'not cosmetic', it's an artificial split that doesn't adequately inform readers. Again, I'm trying for a terse, initial recognition of the subject, with later (perhaps immediately after 'criteria') section that will go into greater detail on the distinctions used in the debate.

And yeah, terse is definitely not easy in this case. Anastrophe (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

One idea. (just brainstorming) Opponents of the ban say that the gun features specified in the ban do not increase power or lethality and are cosmetic. Persons promoting the ban generally say that those features are not cosmetic, but persons promoting expansion of the ban often describe the features as cosmetic. North8000 (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

So, apparently editor LB has been instructed by editor StarryGrandma not to edit here - article or talk - until "2015" (though perhaps that was a typo). And I posted this compromise after that took place (this from LB's talk page). Which kind of poses a problem, since this proposal was directly in response to all that's come before. Obviously we aren't required to have LB's participation - it's a collaborative process, regardless of who is involved. But in order for it to be representative, we'll need a lot more feedback than just four other editors. On the other hand - there's no deadline looming, and the article will never be "done", so there's no hurry. Anastrophe (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to revive some of the discussions that were taking place before the "cosmetic" debacle. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

SG and I (Lightbreather)

Just in case you're wondering, we (SG and I) have agreed "to do no more and say no more and comment no more on the Criteria section of the assault weapon ban article in general and 'cosmetic' in particular" until 2015. We are still working on a background/legislative history section. Also, I (LB) will not modify existing content in the article, nor respond if someone says something negative about me, or comment about other people. Cheers! Lightbreather (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Photo

If there are no objections, I will add in the photo(s). --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Could I get a bit of help with this? I don't know how to get a still shot from a video. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Is one of these two photos not what you want for some reason?

• http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/PPP-PHOTOS-1994-book2/PPP-PHOTOS-1994-book2-folio-D/content-detail.html
• http://www.politico.com/gallery/2012/07/joe-biden-over-the-years/000306-003971.html

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Gaijin. I got a little lost. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Use of the word "defunct"

The word "Defunct" is the proper term for law and political institutions that are no longer valid. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/defunct de·funct (d-fngkt) adj. Having ceased to exist or live: a defunct political organization. Adj. 1. defunct - no longer in force or use; inactive; "a defunct law"; "a defunct organization" inoperative - not working or taking effect; "an inoperative law" --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Article is officially stable now

I know I may be jinxing it by saying so, but the article has been stable for a while now. What do people think about having the page re-assessed by the various wiki-progects so that we can really iron out the wrinkles and who knows? Maybe go for a GA or something? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Background section - follow-up

Since that last section is getting a bit long, I'm starting this new one to iron out any remaining kinks. I don't know who all remembers this, but when we started on this last fall (Sept. 30 & Oct. 1) I was looking for someone to help me identify more sources for the opposition's voice re: Background. At the time, I didn't find much - and I'm not finding more now. I added the best I could find from the NRA, plus something about Jack Brooks' opposition to the bill, which StarryGrandma suggested.

I will go back and re-read my posts and sources from that time. Lightbreather (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Would y'all like me to add this snippet from the Rep. Brooks' source?

"Mr. Brooks called the ban a 'vendetta dressed up in fancy clothes' against legitimate gun owners, who, he said, 'have not shot any women or little children lately.'"

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)