Talk:Assault weapon

Citations needed

Anybody looking for sources for the multiple "Citation needed" tags in this article? I looked for some when I put them there... I think I put most of them there, and many, many weeks ago. Going once, going twice...

I'm tired of these articles having these unsourced statements in them. Lightbreather (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that there is only one in there at the moment (I know that a lot just happened, so maybe my comment is off the target of your question) ) and it is on the first phrase in a sentence. IMO it is "sky is blue" preface/setup for the main statement / second half of the sentence which is explicitly sourced, and I'm guessing that the sources given for the sentence probably also cover the preface. North8000 (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There were three, in the lead. Miguel has provided sources for two, which I am currently reading. He deleted the other, which I restored, pending discussion here. Lightbreather (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The majority of all so-called AW legislation lists rifles as a majority of the firerarms affected. Are you that slow that you cannot see that? Does that really need a citation? Do you assume people are that stupid that they can not see a list of 70 rifles, a dozen pistols and 8 shotguns and not arrive at the same conclusion?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Mike, dammit. I'm not one of "the guys" and I don't appreciate the insults. Please keep it on content and not on your opinion of my intellect. Lightbreather (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Pump/semi-auto shotgun info not for this article - but where?

This statement was in the lead of this (Assault weapon) article.

Some gun control advocates have attempted to place pump-action shotguns in this category.

After reading the sources, and some related sources - including these [1], [2], [3] and others - it is clear that it's mis-stated and belongs somewhere else... But where?

These pump/semi-auto shotguns were/are not defined as assault weapons. They were considered in a bill before the Colorado legislature last year because they can be altered to hold more than eight shells. This falls under high-capacity magazine (or large capacity feeding device) bans, not the "term" assault weapon. (There's a whole, other discussion, about WP:REFERS.) Lightbreather (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There are many instances of actually defining those (and similar) explicitly as assault weapons. Also, there are many more instances of putting such bans under the "sales title" of assault weapon weapon bans where it was not given as explicitly as a definition. And this includes the sentence that you are referring to. So perhaps the wording should be expanded to include something on the order of "banned in legislation described as "assault weapon" legislation. North8000 (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"There are many instances of actually defining those (and similar) explicitly as assault weapons." All I'm asking for is citations, please. Lightbreather (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Look up Nevada SB396 from 2013 proposed by Segerblom. He tried to have pump shotguns classified as assault weapons.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

That is just less than of the applicable things covered by the sentence. The res is is firearm banned under the banner of "assault weapon" legislation even without being explicitly defined as such. North8000 (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I won't dicker with you about this guys. I don't think it belongs in this article, about the "term" assault weapon... and certainly not in the lead. But if trying to (re)move it is gonna start a war... I made this change as a peace offering. I hope we can all live with it.

In 2013 in Colorado, some gun rights advocates said that a proposed high-capacity magazine ban would effectively make assault weapons of pump shotguns because they can be altered to hold more than eight shells - the proposed state limit for shotguns.

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I know of another case where a city seriously considered an "assault weapon" ban that would have banned all semi-automatic shotguns. North8000 (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hitler reference in History of Term

I removed the following text from this article:

During World War II, Adolf Hitler personally chose the name "Sturmgewehr" (literally, "storm rifle", translated in English as "assault rifle") to describe the first (the Sturmgewehr 44) of a new class of small arm, which combined the characteristics of a carbine, submachine gun and automatic rifle. A half-decade earlier the propaganda-friendly term "Sturmgeschütz" ("storm gun") was similarly invented and applied to certain armored military vehicles, turretless tank chassis mounting artillery intended for direct fire support. Otherwise, in English, use of the term "assault weapon" was restricted, prior to the 1980s, to naming certain minor military weapons systems, for example, the Rifleman's Assault Weapon, an American grenade launcher developed in 1977 for use with the M16 assault rifle.

I did so because its misleading and potentially WP:SYNTH. First, the Lead of this article clearly states, "The term "assault weapon" is sometimes conflated [confused] with the term "assault rifle" which usually refers to military rifles capable of switching between semi-automatic and fully automatic fire," so the above text presents a conflict. Second, its an attempt to equate "assault weapon" with "assault rifle" making the terms interchangeable, which they are not. Third, its clearly out of context with the article for how the term is used. The article starts with, "Assault weapon is a political and legal term that refers to different types of firearms, and that has differing meanings, usages and purposes." And then goes on to mention the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. How Hitler factors into this context is beyond me. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Assault weapons are not assault rifles, those are two different things. And on top of that, I'm not convinced that the term "assault rifle" comes from the term "Sturmgewehr". At any rate, the Nazi / Hitler connection seems to be incorrect, and so is best omitted from the article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, too. Lightbreather (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Article Sucks

The article is unecyclopedic, extremely wordy, has poor structure (sentence, paragraph, and overall, duplicates in excessive depth topics already covered in other articles, has many unreliable sources, suffers from much agenda pushing, and is currently owned by a few editors who regularly pat themselves on the back. I repaired many of the above things but much more needs to be done. Some will appreciate that especially readers. If some ignoramus wants to make it excessively wordy again remember this. Readers will not read it if it is to long and confusing. So what is the point of that? I am sure some agenda warriors could care less long as their agenda is promoted which is destroying the reputation of wikipedia. Wikipedia is rightly becoming known as a leftist dominated web site. Many people distrust it and many more are being taught to by agenda pushers.172.56.11.104 (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

For your pleasure or frustration (likely for agenda pushers) I present before: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Assault_weapon&oldid=608606428 and after: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Assault_weapon&oldid=608660366

OK 172, so now that you've had a chance to speak your mind, what are your specific suggestions for improvement? Do you have an outline or another article to suggest that might make for a good template to use? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this editor is blocked. Lightbreather (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

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)