Talk:Assault weapon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

previous edits

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

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

- Andrew Skaggs

---

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

This Article needs a lot of work to be NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.37.50 (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Delirium suggested tighter integration with the assault weapons ban article.

---

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

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

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

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

.223 prohibited for deer, by state

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

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

---

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

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

Iowa does not allow the use of centerfire rifles when hunting deer, so it is a moot point for them, also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.238.196 (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

military use of this term

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

---

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

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

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

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

Gregmg 14:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember, that something designed specifically to aid in assault operations does not imply that it would only be used in an assault or that other weapons would not be used for such. AP weapons designed specifically for AP use are sometime used in AM role and vice versa (even though technically illegal for some AM to be used for AP). The weapons used by the military designated "assault weapon" in their title are designated such for a reason. The bureaucracy in the military is incredible and approval of titles also goes through many people. Reginhild (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

supporters and detractors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've never seen the term "assault weapon" used by someone who is familiar with firearms. Rebel Dream (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

redirect to federal assault weapons ban?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US-centrism and deletionism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Detractors

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

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

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

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

It may seem so, but to me, their purpose is insidious. They know most people won't bother to read the fine print and so using the phrase "spray fire from the hip" implies the weapons are automatic. For those folks who don't bother to research anything they hear on the news, that expression probably has them believing every assault weapon is a machine gun and that people who are pro gun are in favor of machine guns that can be indiscriminately "spray fired from the hip".66.57.225.84 (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Large, High, or Normal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grenade Launchers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The BATFE ruled that the feature as mentioned in the 1994 federal ban meant a device integral to the construction of the rifle itself that allowed the launching of grenades, since mounted launchers like the M203 are controlled as DDs and therefore considered firearms / regulated weapons unto themselves. Since you could not have one firearm be a component of another firearm (at least according to the BATFE), attaching a DD launcher to a weapon regulated under the '94 ban did not have anything to do with the 'grenade launcher' classifying feature in the bill. Attaching a muzzle device or other device specifically for launching grenades, such as the muzzle device on a Yugoslavian M59/66 SKS or those used on the M1 and M1903 Springfield in WWII, did meet the definition of the bill, which contributed to the convoluted problems with keeping Curio & Relic rifles such as the Yugo SKS lawful in states that were more restrictive than the federal law, such as California (where muzzle grenade launchers are banned, but removing it from the Yugo SKS would void the C&R qualification and make it unlawful under federal law--the ATF ultimately made an uncommon exception). If a rifle was created that featured an NFA-regulated DD as part of the integral construction of the rifle (such as a foreward handguard or rifle stock with a DD launcher built into it), my understanding is that it would have met the classification of the bill as the launcher was then part of the rifle; to my knowledge, this never happened and therefore the BATFE never addressed it with a ruling. Most of the NATO-standard flash hiders that could also launch rifle grenades were restricted under the 'flash hider' classifying characteristic. Muzzle brakes were not included under this. I don't have the actual BATFE letters and rulings on hand; I'm not sure anybody does, including the BATFE, and I doubt they'd look for them for us. ...Plus, it's the BATFE. They very well may have decided to arbitrarily change their minds (and therefore the laws) while I was typing this.GarageBay9 (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Cosmetic features

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

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

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

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

By their very definitions and mechanical functions, none of the features classified under the bill affected or participated in the mechanical operation of the rifle itself, or altered the properties of the cartridge it used, or the bullet it fired from that cartridge. Except for bayonet lugs (used to mount a bayonet) and grenade launchers--more specifically, muzzle grenade launchers or muzzle devices that could launch one, such as a 22mm NATO-standard flash hider--all the characteristic components listed were ergonomic or user-interface in nature. Folding or collapsable stocks, pistol grips, and barrel shrouds could all be physically removed from the rifle and it would still function identically, mechanically (except being harder or nearly impossible for a person to be able to hold and fire), and the ballistic behavior of the bullet it fired would be exactly the same.

This is not POV, it is a technical and mechanical fact of the way the listed components function (or don't function, as the case may be). Other wiki articles on rifles like these, such as the AK-47, probably include a brief, referenced description of the rifle's internal action components and their mechanical role in its operation, and specifically exclude mention of the stock, grip, or any barrel shroud--because they are not part of the internal mechanism and therefore do not affect the rifle's shooting function. Therefore by simple logic, and by the defintion of the components, grips, stocks, and barrel shrouds are therefore strictly ergonomic or cosmetic (or both).GarageBay9 (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Military Usage - Descriptive in Nature

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

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

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

I tried this, and my experience was contrary to your claim. The guy at the counter rolled his eyes and said "do you mean assault rifles? We don't carry anything fully-automatic," and proceeded to lecture me on the definitions. —Memotype::T 21:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Fad Terminology?

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

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

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

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

Much of the current (wikepedia) terminology defines assault "weapon" to be the same as a "firearm" - as in weapons that fire bullets or are related to only small arms weapons. They should not be considered the same.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

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

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

This area is for links to supporting and counter arguments.

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

Rude Awakening

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

We really do need to get rid of guns with bayonet lugs, don't we? Those drive-by bayonet'ings are getting out of hand [/sarcasm] (72.155.206.182 (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC))

Laugh now, but how would you feel if your wife was killed in a drive by bayoneting spree? It is vitally important that we regulate all bayonet-capable guns by (rather than banning bayonet lugs) banning guns with a pistol grip and bayonet lugs. Barrel shrouds too.... The combination of a barrel shroud and a bayonet lug is deadly, and you can thank your lucky stars that terrible combination was restricted for so many years.--24.29.235.58 (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Federal Assault Weapons Ban?

Being as the term "assault weapon" has no sold definition outside of the FAWB, maybe this article lacks relevance or significance? The various firearms which fall under the FAWB can potentially share nothing in common except for inclusion in the ban. Compare a standard Remington hunting rifle with a pistol grip and folding stock against an AK-47. The only similarities are a) both being long barreled rifles, and b) both falling under the FAWB. Also, as highlighted in the discussion page, even military usage of the term is loose, varied and as far we can tell undefined outside of a few specific weapon designations, including rocket launchers. —Memotype::T 20:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

ehh, the term is used constantly. I happen to agree that it likely exists in the vernacular of so many (though in my experience nobody quite knows what the term means) because of the media coverage of the FAWB, but it is a distinct term. I think a better solution might be to find sources for the meaninglessness of the phrase or find sources demonstrating how vague and or conflicting the use of this term is, and incorporate that into the article. Pretty much "assault weapon" seems to mean "bad scary gun when owned by people who are not police officers", anything more than that is pretty hard to find sources for outside of the FAWB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.235.58 (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

large paragraph removed

The close similarity to the term assault rifle and wide variety of definitions has led to considerable confusion over this term. In addition, inaccurate media reporting and political propaganda have created a common public misconception that this term covers many items regulated in the United States by the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. For instance, a "grenade launcher" is listed as a classifying characteristic in many of the assault weapons laws. This frequently creates confusion between grenade launchers, such as the M203 that the general public is familiar with seeing in video games and in the media used by soldiers, and the actual classifying feature being described, which is a muzzle grenade launcher--an adapter or muzzle device that allows the launching of rifle grenades. While barreled grenade launchers such as the M203, the Russian GP-30, and the HK69 are strictly regulated as Destructive Devices under federal law by the NFA, rifle grenade launchers and other muzzle device launchers are only regulated in a handful of areas by state or local laws (such as California and New York City). Furthermore, regardless of the launcher's regulatory status, each individual grenade, both cartridge types such as the 40mm grenades used in the M203 and rifle grenades such as the WWII-era M9A1, are already strictly controlled, registered, and taxed as a Destructive Device under the NFA. Consequently, because of their status as Destructive Devices, all grenades as well as barreled launchers such as the M203 are prohibited by state laws in several states. The complex technical and legal distinctions are not commonly known, and frequently lead to misrepresentation in the media of what is actually being described. The Seattle Times made one such error during their reporting of the investigation of the DC sniper, in an article discussing the Bushmaster rifle used in the shootings and what aspects of the then-soon to expire 1994 Assault Weapons Ban might have applied to it or prohibited it (the article concluded that the XM-15 rifle used was not prohibited or affected by the ban). In a sidebar image illustrating different classifying features that were restricted by the Assault Weapon Ban, an image of a M4A1 carbine with a mounted underbarrel M203 grenade launcher was depicted; the M203 was incorrectly described as the type of "grenade launcher" feature restricted by the ban. No statement of error or correction about the misrepresentation was subsequently made.

I didn't remove this, but the whole paragraph is unsourced, so I won't re-insert it. However, I think there is something to be said about the content of this paragraph provided someone could find some sources. —Memotype::T 02:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

I've expanded the lead section somewhat, with this edit. This section was revamped recently when an editor added a new first paragraph and moved several other paragraphs to a different part of the article, with this edit. That was a good move, because the lead section of an article should give a brief and balanced overview of the rest of the article, and mention only the most important points. I've added a few more sentences that I believe will make the lead section easier for the average reader to understand, and which provide a little more information on the subject while not going beyond a brief summary. With the other edit and now this one, the article is much more in line with the Wikipedia:Lead section guideline, in my opinion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Term "assault weapon"

I'd like to describe what I think this article should be about, and how it should present its subject, which is a very controversial one. Other editors are encouraged to give their own opinions about the article here also.

The term "assault weapon" is a legal invention that has been incorporated into a number of laws in the U.S, most famously the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. These laws use various characteristics to define certain firearms as assault weapons, and may also list certain brands and copies of brands as assault weapons. Very generally these include semi-automatic firearms, especially rifles, that have a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and often other features as well. Many of these firearms look similar to military firearms that are fully automatic or selective fire.

So, the term "assault weapon" is generally used in laws banning or restricting certain firearms, and in discussions about those laws. And there is much confusion about all this. For one thing, "assault weapon" sounds like "assault rifle", a term which itself has several possible meanings but often is used to describe the military firearms that are full auto or selective fire. In fact many people erroneously think that an "assault weapon ban" would restrict ownership of full auto firearms (sometimes called machine guns). Also, the term "assault weapon" is sometimes used by the military to describe various weapons or weapons systems, sometimes but not necessarily small arms, that are used in assault operations.

There's a huge debate about the term "assault weapon" itself. Gun control advocates sometimes support laws restricting assault weapons as legally defined, saying that they are more dangerous than other small arms. Gun rights supporters often take the position that assault weapons are functionally the same as any other semi-automatic rifle, and that restricting them more than other small arms is therefore inappropriate. They often object to the term itself, saying that it's arbitrary, and intended to frighten or confuse less well informed citizens.

Folks, I think I've summarized it pretty well, and in very neutral language, if I do say so myself.

The lead section of the article should contain a brief overview of all this, which I believe it currently does, and see the #Lead section talk page section above for more on that. The rest of the article can and should go into a lot of detail about all this, including the controversy, and the confusion, and the other, and now secondary, uses of the term "assault weapon" -- and again I believe it currently does, although there's plenty of room for improvement. All this should ideally have a lot of reliable references, and, very importantly, should be written with a neutral point of view. This means that both sides of the controversy -- currently covered in the "Supporters and detractors" section -- should be explained in the article, and given roughly equal weight.

Again, all editors are encouraged to join in the discussion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Jrrbrt has carried his complaint on this matter to WikiProject Firearms. Editors are invited to comment.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that assault weapon is a term that already has a long-standing definition unrelated to the blatant co-option of the term as a sensationalist "sound-alike" to assault rifle. An assault weapon is a weapon used to breach obstacles and fortifications during an assault. Use as a neologism or portmanteau in US law is solely to have said laws encompass small-arms that do not fit the definition of assault rifle. The article should reflect the actual definition and then only briefly mention its use by US gun-grabbers. L0b0t (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

this is a political term stop reverting it. its a term made by politicians for politics its not a technical term68.38.112.14 (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Finch

"Assault weapon" is a legal term. What is or is not classified as an assault weapon depends on the various laws that define them, for example the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. I fully agree that it's not a technical term, like "semi-automatic rifle" or "selective fire weapon". But it's also not a political term. Of course, laws and politics are closely related, but that doesn't make "assault weapon" a political term. Anyway, the lead section of the article, as currently written, makes all of this fairly clear, so it's not necessary or helpful to put a label on what kind of term it is. Therefore the first sentence of the article should not be changed to say that "assault weapon" is a political term. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

its a political term that briefly became law and now its not. It was a political term long before it was a legal term and it will be long after17:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)~Finch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.112.14 (talk)

Finch, you will need to produce a source which verifies what you are saying. The one that you are attempting to use is not a reliable source (please follow that link to find out what is). There is also certain bias with the source you are attempting to use...more clearly, much of what is on that site is just somebody's opinions and not facts. In any event, while discussion is ongoing you should not revert as that may be considered edit warring and could lead to being blocked. Instead, you should attempt to convince us with discussion and seek a consensus.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

you've made my point by point out the bias of the VPC article this is the first published use of the term. therefore it was created by a political org. so its a political term. 68.38.112.14 (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Finch

They don't count in the first place...they are not a reliable source and they didn't pen the name. You will have to have different sources.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

this was a political term long before it was a legal term. prove it otherwise and it stands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.112.14 (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In the lead paragraph it would be better to say "including certain military style semi-automatic rifles". The phrase "military style" will help the typical reader understand that many semi-automatic rifles are not legally designated as assault weapons. By the lead section having neutral wording that can be understood by the lay person, the article does not take a position on whether or not it makes any sense to legally define and regulate firearms in this way, and it goes on to present both sides of the argument. Also, the clear consensus of editors is that the lead sentence should not say that "assault weapon" is a legal term. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the term military style semi-automatic rifles as it suggests thay have the same functionality of military rifles. IMO something allong the lines of Semi-automatic rifles that are similar in appearance to military riles would work.

and you are correct it is not a legal term it is a political term i'll restore the first few words with the citation 68.38.112.14 (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Finch

Also for those of you who keep saying the VPC says nothing about assault below is the sugerman quote that is widly attributed to be the first published use of the term and it is, as you can see, political. this is taken directly from the ref cited

“[A]ssault weapons . . . will . . . strengthen the handgun restriction lobby . . . . [H]andgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. . . . Assault weapons . . . are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. . . . Efforts to restrict assault weapons are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns.”

68.38.112.14 (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Finch

Finch, I think your main point is that the term "assault weapon" is not a technical term, that describes a certain mechanically defined class of firearms, but rather was coined by politicians who were interested in expanding gun control. I believe that both the lead section and the article as a whole explain that point in some detail. However it is the consensus of the editors who have contributed to this discussion that the lead sentence is better without the phrase "political term", which pushes a less neutral point of view and is in fact not really accurate, since "assault weapon" is a legal term, i.e. one defined by legislation. Furthermore not all semi-automatic rifles are classified by these laws as "assault weapons", only "military style" ones, that is ones that look like military rifles, even though they function quite differently. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I can live with the lead as it is now. assault weapon is however a political term before it became a legal term. there are still some POV issues but its getting better 68.82.143.169 (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)finch

I think it was more neutral before the latest change, because a big part of the debate is whether the specific features are cosmetic or functional. I do kind of like the part about it being a non-technical term though. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "military style" belongs at all at best this is a media buzzword. maybe later in the article but not in the opening. It should be clear that these are not "full auto" as there is a lot of confusion around it and "military style" only exploits that. (yay for signing up for a real account) Finch590 (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Finch

"Military-style" means that the rifles look like military rifles, because they have pistol grips and detachable magazines, and because they're sometimes deliberate copies of military rifles, but, being semi-automatic, they're not actually military. But, now that you mention it, the phrase could be misunderstood by the general reader, so possibly it would be better not to include it in the lead section. "P.S." Yes, you're better off signing up and using an account to edit, so good move there. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

How Does One Reconcile an Assault Weapon Ban with the Miller Decision?

The Miller decision of 1939 upheld the 1934 NFA banning sawed-off shotguns by claiming that such guns were not protected under the Second Amendment, that what were protected were the guns that civilian members of the militia would be expected to keep for militia service; namely, the military service arm of their day. By that reasoning, members of the unorganised militia--the civilian population elibible for military service either militia call up or volunteer military service--ought to be expected to legally own and be trained in the military service rifle, which today would be the M16 and M4. The nationalization of the National Guard in the early 20th century also brought about the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice, which became todays Civilian Marksmenship Program, the US gov't actively civilians to own and train with military rifles for potential military service either as volunteers or draftees. If Miller 1939 protected anything, it protected civilian ownership of semi-automatic military rifles that could be used for military preparedness training--AR-15, M4gery, M1 Carbine, Springfield M1A, semi-auto Kalashnikov and all the other "weapons of war" banned by the very groups who like to point out that the Miller decision supported keeping and bearing arms for potential militia call-up. The "unorganised militia" created by the Act of Congress that nationalised the state militia as the National Guard is defined by federal law as basically everyone eligible for military service not actively enrolled: this today is every able-bodied non-institutionalised citizen not a CO. It is impossible to reconcile the AWB with Miller 39. Naaman Brown (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

itself a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr, literally "storm-rifle".

I'm removing this, it doesn't make sense assault rifle is not a translation of Sturmgewehre and sturmgewehre doesn't directly translate to storm rifle (more likely storm barrage) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.179.133 (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"Sturmgewehr" literally means "assault rifle": "Sturm" meaning "storm" or "assault" (as in "Sturmtruppen") and "Gewehr" meaning "rifle". The German StG 44 (Sturmgewehr 1944 or Storm/Assault Rifle 1944) was the first true assault rifle. It doesn't make sense to claim "assault rifle" is not a translation of "Sturmgewehr". Naaman Brown (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Naaman Brown. It's a direct translation. Twalls (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

.50 BMG=

By a "long shot" the .50 BMG section is irrelevant it would be better suited to the cali AWB artical (if there is one)arguably while so called assault weapons are arbitrary defined, caliber has not historically been a qualifier (or disqualifier) only in the past few years has the anti-2a lobby started to vilify this cal

so anyway i'm going to delete it next week if no one has a good reason why it should be there other then "OMG its a sniper rifle!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finch590 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

RemovedFinch590 (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

POV Hell

The article is hugely anti-AWB right now, I don't even know where to start. Anybody feel like helping out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.226.127 (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it could undergo a reorganization, but I don't think it's too POV. If you feel something is, please point it out. Keep in mind this debate was always characterized by misuse of terminology. Thanks, Twalls (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

this is not the AWB article. if the facts are Anti-AWB the facts are anti-awb. Frankly i think this whole artical should be removed as there is no such thing as an assault weapon. but i'm not ready to crack that egg open Finch590 (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable, common sense policy?

the section on Brady reads

reduce the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun violence in general with reasonable, common sense policy, but especially through banning assault weapons.

i know their mission statement says something like this but the way its written suggests that its "common sense" to see things their way. Anyway i think this needs cleaned up a bit Finch590 (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, though presumably the phrase would be acceptable as part of an attributed quote. How's this, then? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

that is perfect thanks and yes as a quote is fine Finch590 (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Defining "reasonable, common sense" would help a lot here, as would good reference material.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2022

Citation 3 in the lede section points to CNN as to what the department of justice allegedly said, however the primary source link the CNN article gives to the ATF website returns a "not found", making the CNN article factually dubious at this point. Would recommend removing citation 3 and inserting a citation needed tag or else leaving the reference intact and inserting an inline more citations needed tag as for the citation to meet the objective standards expected of an encyclopedia. 2600:8804:7100:4000:2D48:C4A3:4D38:A29C (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It's unreasonable to expect a nearly 10-year-old news article to still have active web links, much less claim that dead links makes the article inaccurate now. After 10 years, I'm somewhat surprised that the CNN article itself is still at that web location. BilCat (talk) 06:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)