Talk:Assault weapon/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Recommend delete Sandy Hook reference in paragraph 2

The discussion over gun control in regard to 'assault weapons' was not started after the Sandy Hook Massacre. If we are going to list all the places where things have pushed the American dialogue toward or away from gun control, then I think that deserves its own section. If we aren't going to discuss it formally, then I think the Sandy Hook reference should be removed. The way this article reads after paragraph 2, you'd think that nobody ever said anything about gun control until 2012. I'm quite sure that a lot of people may or may not want a list of assault weapon related violence but just randomly mentioning it where it is now is just bad organization. PelicanFarm (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, since the controversy relating to the term 'assault weapon' is so severe, I think it would be fair to show exactly what the controversy is in neutral terms. For instance, instead of opening the dictionary entry by claiming the term is a hoax used to scare the public, say "Those opposed to the phrase 'assault weapon' claim that it is used to scare the public against a specific kind of firearm that should instead fall under the term "modern sporting rifle (or something to that effect)". While those that say the term has merit say that there is a clear difference between a firearm designed to hunt game and a firearm that was originally designed for military or paramilitary usage."

Which will still probably outrage plenty of people but at least everyone will get to have their say in a more neutral mannerPelicanFarm (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC).

I agree, this is an informative article about the topic at hand. There are other encyclopedic articles within this wikispace that cover the topic of gun violence that are both more easily and directly accessible by a researcher, and more appropriate. The change should be made. Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 12:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Categories

Are assault weapons not semi-automatic firearms? By any definition, they are. So why have semi-automatic firearms categories been deleted twice without comment? [1][2] Felsic2 (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily. In California, bolt action .50 BMG rifles are also classified as being assault weapons. Also, some shotguns are classified as being assault weapons, despite being pump action, depending on cosmetics, or based on other criteria. So, assault weapons are not necessarily semi-automatic firearms. They can be semi-automatic, bolt-action, pump-action, and, actually, any other action in some jurisdictions where the definition also includes bore size larger than a certain diameter. (Large bore, single shot, break-action, shotguns are even classified as being assault weapons in some jurisdictions.) Just goes to show that the term "assault weapon" does not really mean much. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't find the bolt action .50 BMG rifle mentioned in the California assault weapons guide.[3] They're certainly banned though. One page includes "Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder",[4] but I'm not sure of its statutory authority. Regardless, that'd be a reason to add more categories, not delete them. Felsic2 (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It is a bit odd, with respect to California gun laws. In California, effective January 1, 2005, the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004 regulated .50 BMG rifles exactly the same as assault weapons. That law prohibits the manufacturing, importation, sale, and possession of newly-made .50 BMG rifles. The same basic exceptions that apply to assault weapons also applies to .50 BMG rifle restrictions. Namely, for individuals who lawfully possessed their .50 BMG rifles prior to January 1, 2005, the new law also provided for the registration and continued possession of their .50 BMG rifles, registered in the same state-kept list as assault weapons. Of course, there are California specific .50 BMG variants, too, i.e., .50 DTC, etc., which are not banned, the law having too specifically called out .50 BMG, solely. A different chamber reamer, a different name, and the law is null and void. I know many who have purchased these California-legal .50 BMG variants, mostly in .50 DTC. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Because it's a political term, everything else in those categories is an actual firearm. Herr Gruber (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone wrote that the term includes "pistols and shotguns".[5] I guess I'm learning who to trust around here. In any case, Saturday_night_special is properly categorized in category:Handguns, not "category:firearms concepts". Though if it were I guess we could add Assault rifle to that category. Felsic2 (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

As I said above, the description varies to the point of the Illinois "anything that has a detachable magazine." You can't just plonk it in a firearm category like it belongs there. You'll notice "Saturday night special" isn't in category:pistol or category:revolver; category:handgun is a supergroup category that does include concepts related to handguns like handgun effectiveness, side grip and vest buster, it's not just a list of firearms and the description page for that type of firearm like semi-automatic rifle / pistol / shotgun are. So apples and oranges again. Herr Gruber (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I've put it in Category:Firearms. That's broad enough to include it. Felsic2 (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Term or object

Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms.[1] The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud.

If this article is only about the "term" then we oughta delete all the material that's not about the term. Is that what we really want? If it's about the object, then we should change the lead. Felsic2 (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The term describes various objects depending on time period and jurisdiction. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

So do lots of "terms". There's no fixed definition of "gun" vs "firearm", or of "short-barreled rifle" or of "sawed off shotgun" or of "assault rifle", "Personal defense weapon", etc, etc, etc. If there are objects which meet the definition we oughta write about those objects, not just the definition. Felsic2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually most of those terms do have an exact definition: "firearm" usually refers exclusively to smallarms while "gun" does not, an SBR is "a shoulder-fired, rifled firearm with a barrel length of less than 16 in (41 cm) or overall length of less than 26 in (66 cm)" (with the action closed, I believe), a sawed-off shotgun is a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, an assault rifle is a select-fire rifled gun firing an intermediate round and using a detachable box magazine. About the only one you have there with no real definition is "PDW," which is a marketing term that's been applied to everything from machine pistols to compact assault rifles. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Not really.

• carbine: This is usually a rifle that has been cut down both in length of barrel and in weight in order to make it easier to carry (U.S. tradition has it that a carbine has a barrel length of 22 inches or less). Originally intended for use by cavalry, carbines were also issued to gun crews. In World War II and subsequently, carbines were issued to all front-line troops who were not riflemen, such as drivers, officers, radiomen, and so on. Rifles: an illustrated history of their impact

So much for a fixed definition. Felsic2 (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Your list didn't include the word "carbine." Neither is the term "carbine" rejected entirely by some sources, though you will find a few that say a lot of modern carbines aren't technically carbines because they're not a shortened version of a long rifle. Herr Gruber (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Second paragraph, Sandy Hook reference seems out of place

The discussion over gun control in regard to 'assault rifles' was not started after the Sandy Hook Massacre. If we are going to list all the places where things have pushed the American dialogue toward or away from gun control, then I think that deserves its own section. If we aren't going to discuss it formally, then I think the Sandy Hook reference should be removed. The way this article reads after paragraph 2, you'd think that nobody ever said anything about gun control until 2012. I'm quite sure that a lot of people may or may want a list of assault rifle related violence but just randomly mentioning it where it is now is just bad organization. PelicanFarm (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Which article should contain the assaults conducted using assault weapons? Felsic2 (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"Assault weapon" as applied to rifles is a political term, not a technical term. Military weapons that feature the term are primarily rocket launchers like the Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon, M141 Bunker Defeat Munition, M202 FLASH, FGM-172 SRAW, Rifleman's Assault Weapon, Urban Assault Weapon, etc, with the Neopup PAW-20 as an outlier: these are explosive weapons designed to assault structures, and when you say "military assault weapon," that's what it actually means. The only other "assault weapons" are the "Squad Assault Weapon" which is a less-common term for Squad automatic weapon and is attached to the M249 SAW light machine gun in particular, and CAWS which is this thing and the program that created it. All of the latter share one thing in common: they're fully automatic. The shooter at Sandy Hook used a semi-automatic carbine rifle. Using a scary political term designed to trick people into thinking you're talking about automatic weapons to refer to a real weapon that isn't fully automatic is needlessly POV. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Uses/Misuses of Assault weapons I think should be part of this encyclopedia article. "Scary" is a subjective opinion, to which you are entitled, of the term.

The term: "Assault weapon",seems to be an American English term, and is defined in multiple sources and by legislation, for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/us/even-defining-assault-weapons-is-complicated.html https://www.britannica.com/topic/Assault-Weapons-1961494 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20weapon... the term was first used in 1973 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/assault+weapon

CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The obvious problem with this is that presenting such lists is an argument used by one side of this debate; while we could note that such lists are presented as "proof" that assault weapons are dangerous by those arguing in favour of bans, reproducing such a list ourselves would be going too far into supporting arguments used by one side, since these lists are heavily criticised by pro-gun groups; for example, on the basis that they are media sensationalism (ie, reporting of every instance of an uncommon event to make it seem disproportionately dangerous, as was done for a while with urban fox attacks and alleged false widow spider bites in the UK: this, printed in the New York Times of all places, includes "“Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement,” a Department of Justice-funded evaluation concluded" "In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows" "This politically defined category of guns — a selection of rifles, shotguns and handguns with “military-style” features — only figured in about 2 percent of gun crimes nationwide before the ban"), and include "assault weapons" from states which do not have assault weapon legislation at all (Orlando, Baton Rouge, Aurora) or did not regard the shooter's weapon as an assault weapon at the time (Sandy Hook). Presenting a flat list with no context is not the right way to handle it: your first link actually presents a very good argument as to why, too, when it points out that the term is polarising, politicised, and that pro-2A groups reject its application to any weapon. So if you apply it to a bunch of weapons by making a list rather than just saying people make lists, you're explicitly siding against that position. Herr Gruber (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

By all means, let's add more context. Felsic2 (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Herr Gruber, the criminal use can be explanatory text, not just a list. This article is a category article and a goal is to present neutral information on the category. The article seems not comprehensive and incomplete: for example "AR-15 rifles are a favorite for target shooting, hunting, and personal protection" but there is no criminal use description of the AR-15 and variants.

fyi, I do see there are lists of gun violence in WP: for example I found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_United_States_by_state

Yes, and lists of gun violence are the place for lists of gun violence, not articles on politically contentious terminology. As noted, listing such incidents would be directly making an argument made by one side of the debate. I've removed the claim you pointed to since it was unnecessary where it was and could be argued as misrepresentation of the arguments the source was making. Herr Gruber (talk) 05:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

As a counterpoint, your argument, if applied elsewhere, would mean we should add this long, referenced list to this article. I doubt you would argue that was actually appropriate. Herr Gruber (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Herr Gruber, I myself am not requesting a list be added to this article, I was only trying to note I found a list, and added "FYI" before my statement above. Note: I do think this article is more than an article on terminology but is an article on a category of weapons use in America, noting the definition of assault weapons varies by organization and political entity. CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

AR-15 rifles are a favorite for target shooting, hunting, and personal protection

If this statement is made in the article: "AR-15 rifles are a favorite for target shooting, hunting, and personal protection" then I think the criminal use of AR-15 rifles from the same source, should be included in the article also to be neutral. Putting only this statement in the article from the source seems biased. I believe that us why user:Herr Gruber deleted the statement

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/us/lanza-used-a-popular-ar-15-style-rifle-in-newtown.html?_r=0

CuriousMind01 (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Felsic2 (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No, because Sandy Hook is already mentioned twice on the page, it doesn't require three mentions. Though I've removed it again. Such a statement could exist in the right context, but it needs to be listed as an argument made by one side, not a statement of objective fact, and would be better sourced as "according to X" and cited to someone who actually agrees with it. Herr Gruber (talk) 06:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

User Herr Gruber, Thank you for removing the statement. If a statement like "AR-15 rifles are a favorite..is in this article, then I think you are correct it needs to be listed as an argument, according to X, and i addition would also have to have a neutral balancing statement of criminal use of AR-15s because of the notority of AR-15s and variants misuse for criminal use. Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Since it concerns AR-15s rather than "Assault weapons", I suggest that it should go in AR-15 instead. Felsic2 (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Use in attacks

Use in attacks is relevant.

In the general principle Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Criminal use "In order for a criminal use to be notable enough for inclusion in the article on the gun used, it must meet some criteria...Similarly, if its notoriety greatly increased (ex. the Intratec TEC-DC9 became infamous as a direct result of Columbine)" Criteria is not specified. I think the notoriety of the AK-47 and AR-15 in multiple shooting crimes stated in the NY Times article meets the notoriety criteria. Not describing the criminal use of the AK-47 violates neutrality I think. (UTC)CuriousMind01 (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The entire context is important,

"In order for a criminal use to be notable enough for inclusion in the article on the gun used, it must meet some criteria. For instance, legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage (ex. ban on mail-order of firearms after use of the Carcano in JFK's assassination would qualify). Similarly, if its notoriety greatly increased (ex. the Intratec TEC-DC9 became infamous as a direct result of Columbine). As per WP:UNDUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

The Intratec TEC-DC9 did not become well known until after it was banned. It was just called a pistol in the early news releases. A "rather crappy pistol", as I recall one gun magazine writer was calling it, too. Once it became banned, though, it became well known. Due to the ban, it was re-designed into an AB (After Ban) version, too. The Carcano misuse by Oswald also changed the mail ordering of firearms, so it definitely had an impact. But, because the Carcano was banned, we did not include its criminal uses in the "Rifle" article, but in the specific article about the Carcano, itself. The same should be true for "Assault Weapon" article vs. the AK-47 article. After all, the AK-47 was specifically called out in the original Assault Weapons Ban. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Assault weapons are notorious for their use in mass shootings, which led to their bans. Is that unclear? Felsic2 (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, they are not notorious for their use in mass shootings. Only about 0.2% of terrorism uses long guns. Hence, they appear to be less effective than trucks and pressure cookers, if body count is used for a comparison. Yet, I see no mention in the articles on trucks and pressure cookers that trucks and pressure cookers are notorious for their use in mass terrorism incidents. There are over 450 million firearms in the United States, by the last estimates in the FBI reports that I have seen. Seriously, if there was a major problem with firearms, it would be obvious. Swimming pools are more dangerous than firearms in the United States. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Where are you getting your statistics?

A more important issue is perhaps that "Assault weapons", according to some arguments on this page, is not an actual type of weapon. It is merely asome kind of "political" construct. That "political term" has been associated with mass shootings (not necessarily terrorist attacks) in many sources and in legislation. Is that disputed? Felsic2 (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has ever been shot with a political term. Herr Gruber (talk) 07:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

How little you know of history....Felsic2 (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Charming. Herr Gruber (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Miguel Escopeta, thank you for the explanation, but I think the criminal use of assault weapons, which includes variants of the AK-47 and AR-15, and encompasses more than a specific gun, has now gained notoriety and is worth to noting in this article, due to criminal incidents of use and killings for example: Roberti-Roos_Assault_Weapons_Control_Act_of_1989 Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting, which led to the assault weapons bans in the NY_SAFE_Act and Gun_laws_in_Connecticut#Post-Sandy_Hook_gun_control_legislation, Charlie Hebdo shooting, November_2015_Paris_attacks. 2012_Aurora_shooting, 2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting, 2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers, 2016_shooting_of_Baton_Rouge_police_officers and noted in the NY Times article http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/world/ak-47-mass-shootings.html Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

No, because "assault weapon" is a political term for a group of weapons (with a definition which varies depending on which bill you're talking about and often includes weapons its own definition doesn't include by having a list of named firearms regardless of their features), not a single weapon. The GUN criteria are for specific weapons used in crime, not for arbitrary groups of weapons. The wording is "In order for a criminal use to be notable enough for inclusion in the article on the gun used..." not "the article on a political term for the type of gun used." Also the Paris attacks and Hebdo shooting were not semiautomatic "assault weapons," they were actual fullauto assault rifles (and SMGs in the Hebdo attack). It's unclear if the Dallas shooter used a weapon that would be defined as an "assault weapon" either since one candidate for his gun is the SKS, which usually doesn't have a detachable magazine and so only gets dinged in bills that specifically name it. Herr Gruber (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The Saturday Night Special article is a good example for how this article could be structured. It includes a significant section on criminal use and violence.

(Note: I think writer meant to use this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special CuriousMind01 (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC) )

The GUN criteria, according to your argument, doesn't prevent us from adding this.

Agree that crimes committed with assault rifles belong in that article instead of this one.

If the SKS is regulated as an assault weapon, then this article covers it. That's because, as is often repeated, "assault weapon" is just whatever politicians say it is in those laws. Felsic2 (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Um, the problem with this is that the definition of "assault weapon" varies; in some states there is no such thing, in some states the definition is far more stringent than in others (going right up to the attempted Illinois ban's "anything with a detachable magazine"), in most countries there has never been such a thing, and a key criticism of the idea is that it is based on ignoring this principle. And the section in Saturday night special is mostly based on debunking the claim that they are disproportionately used in crime, and only actual example of a specific crime it uses is an attempt to assassinate the President of the United States.

Also, whether the SKS is an assault weapon depends on which law and which state you're talking about. In New York it's not as long as they're foreign-made and from anywhere except China, in which case they're classified as curios and relics (C&R) due to being more than fifty years old, but you can only replace a certain number of parts on them before they lose their C&R status and are dinged for having a "large capacity feeding device" (you also have to comply with rulings that are utterly incomprehensible). In California the basic SKS isn't an assault weapon but the Chinese SKS D and M are banned (not as assault weapons), as is the Yugoslavian 59/66A1 (has a "grenade launcher"), and any SKS modified to use an AK magazine is banned by specific order of the Attorney General. In Connecticut some foreign-made SKS rifles might be banned as "assault weapons" because if a rifle is poorly manufactured you can sometimes fit 11 rounds into the fixed magazine that's only supposed to hold 10 (the Connecticut bill is one of the only ones that has provisions for rifles with fixed magazines to be "assault weapons" too), but it's not clear if this is actually the case. Etc.

There's even sillier examples, like that prior to 2013, Connecticut banned the Ruger Mini-14/5F by name (a variant with a factory-fitted folding stock) but it was still perfectly legal to buy any other Mini-14 variant and put a folding stock on it, meaning that one could legally own a weapon that was in all ways identical to a banned "assault weapon." (You can't anymore because it's now a one-criteria test rather than a two-criteria test). In addition, amusingly, the original Clinton Ban did not say a thing about "machine guns," and so if you filled out Title II paperwork and could find one (and lived in a state that didn't ban either "machine guns" or all Title II devices, which some do), you could own an actual assault rifle with all the "military-style features" you wanted since it was legally not a semi-automatic.

In addition, since most AWBs include "grandfather" clauses, they only apply to weapons of particular configurations manufactured after a particular date; one could own a rifle bought before the Clinton AWB came into effect that included all the "military-style features" on the list, but was not an assault weapon since it didn't fall within the specified timeframe of the bill. This also makes it dubious to call most of the famous AWB-related cases "shootings with assault weapons," since in the majority of cases the weapon used was not one according to the law at the time and would be grandfathered by the law that was passed (for example, Lanza's gun was totally compliant with state law at the time of Sandy Hook, and Holmes' 100-round magazine used in the Aurora shooting would be grandfathered under the Colorado gun law changes since they happened after the shooting; also, Colorado has no AWB, though the municipality of Denver has a local one, so Holmes' gun was not regarded as an assault weapon by his own state and still isn't; similarly, there's no AWB in Florida so the Orlando shooting was only with an "assault weapon" if you use a definition from a different state or defunct Federal law, same with Louisiana and the Baton Rouge shooting, and so on). Most real classes of firearms aren't based on when or where you bought them. Herr Gruber (talk) 05:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't overthink it. If reliable sources say assault weapons are used in attacks, then that's what we report. We don't second-guess them based on our own perceptions. Felsic2 (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Um, that's not really how it works. You could very easily find reliable sources that contradict those statements (as I have, several times). The question of if something is ever an assault weapon and if it is, according to whom, is relevant to any attempt to add a list of things supposedly involving them. The fact that most of these weapons were not regarded as assault weapons at the time the attacks were carried out can be sourced. The fact that other sources call them assault weapons anyway can also be sourced, but needs to be presented in the proper context if it's presented at all. Florida doesn't regard Marteen's gun as an assault weapon, Colorado doesn't regard Holmes' gun as one. Those are facts. Herr Gruber (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"Doesn't matter, reliable sources say the MCX isn't an AR-15, so it isn't one". The same principle applies here. We follow the sources. If reliable sources say that assault weapons have a history of being used in crime, then that's what we report. Felsic2 (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

So the "gotcha!" again, didn't see that coming. Reliable sources don't dispute that the MCX is not an AR-15, so this is apples and oranges. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's the same principle. We follow the sources. If they contradict each other, then we report both sides.

user Herr Gruber's suggestion to use the Saturday Night Special gun article as a model for including criminal use I think is a good suggestion. This category article seems not comprehensive to me or balanced , it includes legal uses for example: "AR-15 rifles are a favorite for target shooting, hunting, and personal protection' but does not include criminal uses/misuses. CuriousMind01 (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. That sentence is god example. It's cited to a New York Times article. Here's a quotation:

• Favored by target shooters in competitions and by hunters who stalk small game and sometimes deer, its customizable features — stocks, grips, sights, barrel lengths — are endlessly discussed in online forums. It ranks high among the firearms bought for self-defense. But the AR-15 style rifle — the most popular rifle in America, according to gun dealers — was also the weapon of choice for Adam Lanza, who the police said used one made by Bushmaster on Friday to kill 20 young children and six adults in an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., in a massacre that has horrified the nation.[6]

It's crazy that we repeat the first assertion but omit the second. That indicates a lack of neutrality in the POV of this article. That line, at least, should be easy to fix. Felsic2 (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Removed that claim as unnecessary. Also the article does not exclude mention of criminal uses, specifically it mentions Cleveland, Aurora and Sandy Hook (twice). Herr Gruber (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

What's your definition of 'necessary' and 'unnecessary' content for this article? Felsic2 (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

If Sandy Hook, Cleveland, and Aurora were the only occasions then there might not have ever been an AWB. But since it's OK to mention them, thenit makes sense to give a summary of the matter, instead of disparate mentions. It's at least as important an issue as the hundreds of words devoted to the "cosmetic" features section. Felsic2 (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Inserting a list or section would push a POV and be UNDUE in light of the fact that in 86% of the 50 states and the entire rest of the world there is no such thing as an assault weapon, it would be like inserting a full section on lawful uses such as rifle shooting contests and hog hunts with ARs into the article, which would push the POV that assault weapons legislation targets weapons used for harmless pursuits, even if every item were adequately referenced. This whole argument is like saying we should add the names of people who claim to have had their cancer cured by quack treatments using laetrile to the section on "advocacy and legality" or after it and claiming it's POV not to because that section includes that Steve McQueen died after failed treatment with it. The cosmetic feature section is supported with statements from both the pro and anti sides and a disinterested scholarly source. Herr Gruber (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anyone talking about "inserting a list" except you. What's your definition of 'necessary' and 'unnecessary' content for this article? Felsic2 (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Assault weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130102110222/http://www.saf.org:80/LawReviews/Tartaro1.htm to http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Tartaro1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Assault weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Tartaro1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131010231937/http://www.vpc.org/press/0409aw.htm to http://www.vpc.org/press/0409aw.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

I removed it as off-topic. It's unclear what relevance it had at the beginning of the section on "Political and legislative issues"; plus it was also original research, as the sources are about the trade group, not what the owners prefer.

• Owners and the firearm industry prefer the term modern sporting rifles.

References

Pls also see diff. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"Assault" weapons can be anything that can be used as a weapon

This entire article is written in such a politically minded way that it should either be removed or rewritten with something simple (like what my subject is). It is not helpful at all. The very definition of assault is so broad, it can literally be applied to anything. If I use my fists to punch someone, I have just used an assault weapon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.249.51 (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sure. And anything that revolves could be called a "revolver". But this term is widely used even if it's hard to define. We do the best we can. Felsic2 (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the problem with this page lies with the editors constantly violating Wikipedia policy here. The entire page is seriously skewed to point towards a political motivated viewpoint and any edits that attempt to reign in this skewed viewpoint are reverted by people with an extreme bias. The facts are the term "assault weapon" is not definable and is used to point towards a personal/political view of an item rather than a factual clarification of an item based on set parameters. There are no set parameters that classify an assault weapon including the ones used in the AWB of 1994. The fact that an firearm can be legal or illegal based on it's looks rather than function is just asinine. See Ruger Mini 14/30 for just how asinine the law was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Precursor85 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Assault Weapon / Semi-Automatic

The accepted and in-use definition of an Assault weapon, in short is a select-fire weapon capable of firing in automatic or burst modes. Examples of such would include the AK-47 and M-16 rifles, though obviously not limited to such. Current revision of this article incorrectly states that a semi-automatic weapon meets this definition. This is inaccurate data and delves into the realm of politics. This is a misnomer and was first used in such context in or around 1990 as part of a political push for change of law. This article, like any article in Wikipedia, should be apolitical, that is, interested in facts alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Das1055 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

When a source like Miriam-Webster includes an alternate definition that a civilian semi-automatic version of military assault rifle is also an assault rifle, that is a fact. A fact merely means you can verify it independently; "truth" is the realm of the Allmighty. The article does a good job here of covering the different definitions, unlike the Assault Rifle article.Farcaster (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your claimed "fact"? Is it it globally universal? (i.e. does it apply in very English speaking country?) HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the sources located [Here] you will also find a similar breakdown via Encyclopedia Britannica [Here]. These "facts" have been accepted definitions for over 60 years. The "Assault Rifle" / "Assault Weapon" label was only first applied to limited functionality civilian versions in the late 80's and early 90's, and primarily by politicians and news agencies after said politicians applied the label. If you want to get technical and ask for definition based on language, any weapon, whether it be a rock, hammer, knife, or firearm used to [Assault] someone would meet the definition. That, however, would not be in the spirit of the article. Das1055 (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Though it wasn't meant to be a trap, you appear to have walked right into it. Every source you provided there is an American one, and I had made sure to ask about non-American applicability. Wikipedia is a global site. We cannot restrict ourselves to a definition applicable in only one country, unless we make it very clear that's what we're doing, and why. I'm Australian. I don't know the details, but I'm pretty sure a definition was created at the time of Australia's new gun laws in 1996. Do you know what it is? HiLo48 (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@HiLo48: sorry for the belated reply, but I think yours is a good observation that merits follow-up. This specific article is currently explicitly about the use of the term in the USA. If the term is used in a global context, either the scope of this article could be changed or it could be moved to Assault weapons in the United States, with a new article created here with global scope and a main tag to the US-centric article. I personally would prefer the separate article approach because it would better allow incremential improvement of the global-scope article. VQuakr (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of technical differences

I included this text, which was reverted. If editors would like to paraphrase it (the complaint of the initial person to remove it; the second left no reason), please do so. I left the extended quotes because I don't want to make a technical mistake in translation. Many editors here have the expertise to paraphrase correctly.Farcaster (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times reported in February 2018 that while there is a technical difference, "...in actual American combat these technical differences are less significant than they seem. For decades the American military has trained its conventional troops to fire their M4s and M16s in the semiautomatic mode — one bullet per trigger pull — instead of on “burst” or automatic in almost all shooting situations. The weapons are more accurate this way, and thus more lethal...What all of this means is that the Parkland gunman, in practical terms, had the same rifle firepower as an American grunt using a standard infantry rifle in the standard way."

References

Some coverage of the minority viewpoint that semi-auto and automatic firearms are practically equivalent in a civilian setting probably does have enough coverage in secondary sources to merit some mention. It is, however, a minority viewpoint. An entire paragraph with extensive quoting as you propose is not WP:DUE. I suggested a terse paraphrase, "The New York Times noted that in practice, American soldiers normally use their assault rifles in semiautomatic mode for better accuracy." This does leave out the NYT's rather inapt analogy about mass shootings, since firing indiscriminately into a crowd is exactly the sort of situation in which a fully automatic weapon would be more dangerous. VQuakr (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I would add a clause to your proposal: "The New York Times noted that in practice, American soldiers normally use their assault rifles in semiautomatic mode for better accuracy; as a result, civilians with assault weapons have similar rifle firepower as infantry."Farcaster (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Material like that is propaganda, intended only to scare people, and totally irrelevant in an article about the US legal/political term "assault weapon", and laws that deal with that term. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper or a propaganda flyer, so properly sourced, and thoroughly neutral, material about the legal definition and the laws that deal with that definition, both federal and state, is all that belongs in this article, nothing else. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

First, the NYT is a reputable source. Second, the article expresses a view that the technical difference between assault rifles and assault weapons means little in terms of actual effective firepower, a valid argument. Third, there is no requirement that every cited source be neutral and cover all sides of a debate, only that authors work towards a balanced set of views and sources over time.Farcaster (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that the practical difference between assault rifles and assault weapons is of only tangential interest to this article. Automatic weapons have been effectively banned in the United States for nearing 100 years - they are treated very differently than assault weapons in US law regardless of the NYT's opinion of their firepower. VQuakr (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is "assault weapons" is what we're calling semi-automatic versions of military rifles. Further, there is the issue of what a bump stock does to it.Farcaster (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This article purpose is about the US legal term of "assault weapons." The information already in this section was enough to understand the difference. Adding this just sounds like a push for one side of an agenda. No one is disputing the source. Reb1981 (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The NPOV rules (see quote in section above) make it clear that one side of an argument is fine to add to Wikipedia; neutrality is achieved over time through multiple edits and sources. However, I don't find that this is a particularly controversial argument, as this seems to be stating a fact, which is our soldiers are trained to fire semi-auto in most cases, and that is what civilian assault weapons (e.g., like the AR-15 in the article) do as mechanically designed. The civilian variants of assault rifles are clearly defined as in-scope for this article.Farcaster (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

An "assault weapon" is any weapon that fits the legal definition, i.e. has the features that were expressly banned, regardless of if it's based on a military weapon or not. There's an image in the article of a Ruger 10/22, a "plinking rifle" in .22LR, that was legally classified as an "assault weapon", in spite of being 100% civilian. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as others note, an "assault weapon" is a legal term. The current scope of this article is limited to the US; in a section above another editor suggested that the term might have legal meaning in Australia as well. An assault weapon is a firearm that is defined as one by a legal entity, regardless of whether it is similar/related to a military weapon. VQuakr (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Farcaster:(edit conflict) It doesn't matter if the NYT is a reputable source or not, the material doesn't belong here, regardless of how well sourced it is. It's well outside the scope of the article, which is the US legal term "assault weapon" and laws that deal with that, and as I have already told you, merely being sourced is never by itself reason enough to include anything in an article here. Anything and everything that is added to an article here has to be properly sourced, within the scope of the article it is being added to and neutral, and can not be given undue weight. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

First, the scope is assault weapons, which is what the NYT article covers; so it's in scope. It's from a reliable source, we agree there. And the NPOV rules are clear as cited in the section above that it's OK to include sources that argue a particular point of view. These should NOT be excluded, but rather should be balanced over time. It seems like a simple addition; why not help VQakr and me with the text?Farcaster (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure how many times it has to be pointed out "the material doesn't belong here". -72bikers (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Where do you suggest it go? And what is your reason for exclusion?Farcaster (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you not read the comments above? -72bikers (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news WP:BALASP. -72bikers (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Regardless of the outcome RSN discussion, Thomas.W is spot on, this article is about the political term "assault weapon". Thus the various laws and definitions are the scope of this article. The NTY article, reliable or not, is not about the term. The question "Where do you suggest it go?" is irrelevant. Per wp:onus it's up to the proposing editor to get consensus for inclusion and just because something is reliably sourced doesn't mean it needs to be in any Wikipedia article much less a particular article. Springee (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

So by that logic, we're going to change the article title, to Assault weapon (laws and definitions) or Assault weapon (political term) so we can have a full discussion of the subject in the new main article, Assault weapons? I'm more than happy to put the current NPOV article, which excludes lots of relevant content, as a secondary article. Since when do you guys get to decide what the scope of a main article on the subject is or isn't?Farcaster (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Well that's an interesting idea - according to Springee, the article assault weapon is only about the term, not about the weapons in question. Where is the policy or consensus discussion that supports this novel theory? What other examples of wiki articles are there that are purely about a term itself, and not what it refers to? How is it consistent with WP:NOT#DICT? Waleswatcher (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a rather straight forward theory put forth by Thomas.W who did something crazy... like reading the opening sentence of the article which scopes the article. Springee (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The opening statement defines the topic of the article. It does not say the article is a dictionary entry about that term. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not: Definitions. Articles should begin with a good definition or description, but articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content. If they cannot be expanded beyond a definition, Wikipedia is not the place for them...For a wiki that is a dictionary, visit our sister project Wiktionary."Farcaster (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I suppose the key point of the NYT article is that the distinction between an assault rifle and assault weapon (civilian version) is so minor in practice as to be irrelevant. This certainly bears on the definition too.Farcaster (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You're so far off the mark it's almost funny: the only similarities between the .22LR Ruger 10/22 in the picture I pointed to earlier, which is legally classified as an assault weapon, and a military assault rifle, are that both are firearms with a folding/collapsing stock and a detachable magazine. AR-15 style rifles are only one of many very different types of firearms that are classified as assault weapons under US law... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

So what we really need is an article that covers civilian versions of assault rifles? Then the text would be relevant?Farcaster (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Wound characteristics

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Non-admin closure Closing this down with Reject per RfC in Reliable Sources noticeboard. -The Gnome (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The following text was added and removed several times. Let's discuss this as a group; should it be included or not?

• The New York Times interviewed several trauma surgeons with military experience, who described the wounds created by assault rifles, both military and civilian variants: “What makes injuries from these rifles so deadly…is that the bullets travel so fast. Those from an M-16 or AR-15 can depart the muzzle at a velocity of more than 3,000 feet per second, while bullets from many common handguns move at less than half or a third that speed. The result: The energy imparted to a human body by a high velocity weapon is exponentially greater than that from a handgun.” The bullets in an M-16 or AR-15 also turn sideways (yaw) or "tumble" when they hit a person. The surgeons also explained "the weapons produce the same sort of horrific injuries seen on battlefields…You will see multiple organs shattered. The exit wounds can be a foot wide.” As the blast wave travels through the body, it pushes tissues and organs aside in a temporary cavity larger than the bullet itself. They bounce back once the bullet passes. Organs are damaged, blood vessels rip and many victims bleed to death before they reach a hospital.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farcaster (talk • contribs)

References

You are making a lot of assumption on its relevance. Comparing a rifle with a hand gun is not relavent to this article. it is common knowledge that a rifle is more powerful than a hand gun. You are also making a very specific claims with velocity, it is just on the high end with a very specific barrel length, and most rifles have this speed and beyond. You are also making a distinction with just one caliber in a general article of weapons. It would also seem to appear you are asserting that simply being shot one time from this caliber is so deadly that a instant death is assured. -72bikers (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose on several grounds. First, this is material that should be about ballistics. However the NYT, beyond shock value, isn't a reliable source for that information. It would be better to cite an actual study or comparative study on the subject. Second, "Assault Weapon", being a nebulous term doesn't have a single ballistic type. In many states some types of .22LR are considered Assault Weapons. Thus we would mislead readers with such specific content that doesn't apply across the range of covered firearms. Springee (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, as answered at RSN. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, per my arguments on RSN, the source lacks the specificity to be included in this page. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC).
• Oppose, as answered at RSN. -72bikers (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, as answered at RSN. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per prior discussion on the Assualt Rifle talk page, and elsewhere. Reb1981 (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support/Include as proposer, as answered at RSN. Clearly the NYT is a reliable source. Further, the article is about assault rifles and assault weapons as defined by Wikipedia, with both military (M-16) and civilian (AR-15) examples provided in the article. In terms of NPOV, from the Wikipedia NPOV page: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." So we should proceed on the side of inclusion and improvement. The approach here should be to include the text and provide additional information from scientific studies as provided at the RfC. If there are concerns about undue weight, we can address those with sources that distinguish the impact of different cartridges or other rifles.Farcaster (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Farcaster: as of this writing, the discussion at the RSN is still open. VQuakr (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose not particularly relevant to this article. Assault weapons can be of any caliber and cartridge type, including small-bore pistol rounds and shotgun shells. A sensationalistic essay that notes that injuries from 5.56 are more severe than those from handguns (duh) doesn't provide useful information about the actual topic of this article. VQuakr (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC Notice

An RfC related to this topic, Wound characteristics of military-style rifles, has been opened at Reliable sources noticeboard. –dlthewave ☎ 20:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

See archive. -The Gnome (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

24 Feb 2019, removal of sentence from lead

I removed a recently added item from the lead. The item cited a Jan 2019 study stating a correlation between mass shootings and the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban. I've removed this material for several reasons. The first is that the lead should follow the body. While the 1994 ban is discussed in the body, the impact is not. Thus the lead doesn't follow the body. Second, the wiki text was not accurate per the cited article. The article only discussed the 1994 federal ban while the Wiki text could reasonably be read to mean all assault weapons bans (presumably the many state level bans) Third, this article largely avoids the discussion of the merits of such laws so it may be UNDUE to introduce just a small fraction of the much larger discussion of that topic. I don't have an opinion regarding if such information should or shouldn't be part of this article only that if included it should be done in a comprehensive way. Finally, the impact of the 1994 ban is complex and not clear cut. The Wiki article on the 1994 ban has an extensive section discussing the impact of the law including the correlation with mass shootings.[[7]] That section represents the primary article and discussion on the subject. This newly released study may find a home in that section. Springee (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure we can introduce this in the body of the text aswell.

The conclusions of the source is "Mass-shooting related homicides in the United States were reduced during the years of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994 to 2004."

How do you propose summarizing it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I would propose we don't add it to the lead at all. Again we have a primary article on the subject and we shouldn't give undueb weight to a single study given the large number of related studies. In the body we might summarize the intro paragraph from the primary article section. However, since this article is about the term/definition "assault weapon" vs a particular law let's send the reader to the article that has all the details. We could change the primary topic tag to include mention of the impact of the law. WP:SUMMARY applies here. BTW, the new article's conclusions are already in line with the primary topic. Springee (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

A summary should be here. If this article was just about the "definition" than it should be called "definition of assault weapon" to make room for an article about the general topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems overdetailed for the lede. Probably merits a sentence in the section about the 1994 ban. VQuakr (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be best to just point to the primary article since the topic is complex. Perhaps something like a sentence that says:

The ban had no statistical impact on overall homicide rates but is correlated with a decrease in mass-shooting related homicides.

Further information: Federal Assault Weapons Ban § Effects

I think that would avoid the need to provide any specific citations while, still give the reader a summary and point to the location of the detailed information. Springee (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem is much of Federal Assault Weapons Ban#Effects is based on outdate sources. Will it is true that 10 years ago there was not enough evidence to draw conclusions this has now changed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

What isn't true in that sentence or what is likely to become untrue? If some study were to come out and change everything we can change the text at that time. Springee (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that that correlation is not cause, so it's rather dishonest to present it as if the two are related. Yearly ice cream sales are directly correlated to shark attacks, that doesn't mean ice cream sales cause shark attacks. In addition, it's dubious as to whether the variation in mass shootings during the AWB is statistically significant: some studies say it is and some say it isn't. Bones Jones (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Origin of term in the lead

The lead currently says "The origin of the term has been attributed to legislators, gun control groups, and the media." But the article with the support of 2 different sources says it may have been from the "firearms industry". I see a sock has also been trying to add [8] another source [9] which also says the same thing. That source is relying on the book we are already using, but although I think it's an opinion piece (well I don't see where it's branded as such, but it sure reads like one), it's coming from what is I assume an RS so should help if there are doubts over the book. I'd also note that both the book and the National Review piece seem to hardly be gun control proponents/"the media" trying to "re-invent history" or something. The NR in particular is a gun control opponent claiming that it was invented by the firearms industry and co-opted by gun control advocates etc. Given all that, should the lead be modified to mention the firearms industry as another possible source for origin of the term? Nil Einne (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I see the origin issue has been discussed a few times before but all of them seem to be from fairly different versions and I think often not to do with the lead. That said I didn't find any discussion where it's suggested that the firearms industry as an inventor is not well supported enough. Nil Einne (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to resurrect this talk section, but the term "firearms industry" was added to that cited sentence after this talk section was last updated. I've removed the aforementioned term. The University of Dayton article states that the term "assault weapon" was first used by the German military-industrial complex to designate the Sturmgewehr 44. The focus of the Wikipedia article is the term used in the United States by the media and by federal and state government sources to certain firearms with listed features. To say or imply that the German military-industrial complex of World War II is the same as the American private firearms industry is, as any one of us is likely smart enough to figure out, BS. Again, the article is about a modern American term for "military-style rifles" and related armaments, with an emphasis on modern. A designation used in 1944 by the Wehrmacht is irrelevant and detracts from the lede. Feel free to further discuss this with me if you have any questions or concerns. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Military Assault Weapon section

Should the following Military Assault Weapon category be added to this article or made into a separate article? Naturally it needs to be wikified and referenced properly. Jrcrin001 (talk)

"Assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Because they are light and portable yet still able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000–1,600 feet (300–500 metres), assault rifles have replaced the high-powered bolt-action and semiautomatic rifles of the World War II era as the standard infantry weapon of modern armies."

This accepted description is for an assault rifle (https://www.britannica.com/technology/assault-rifle) is a term from Britannica. A military assault rifle is an assault weapon. A military assault weapon is not a civilian redefined "assault weapon." The specific use of the term "Assault weapon" is not the same.

Briefly, a military assault weapon can be a rifle, sub-machine gun or a pistol capable of automatic fire.

A military assault weapon (rifle or sub-machine gun or pistol) is a weapon used in a military Combat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat) Assault (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault) by using automatic fire (one trigger pull for many bullets going out the barrel) to suppress enemy reaction. HINT: Automatic weapons have been illegal for civilians to own since 1934 National Firearms Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act) in the USA. Military Assault weapons are a category of firearms (aka firearm weapons) that are capable of automatic fire. Pull the trigger and the weapon (aka the firearm) fires repeatedly until the cartridge magazine is empty. That defines an Automatic firearm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_firearm).

Automatic firearms do include Machine gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun)s (MG). A “MG” is usually used statically because it is heavy and uses sustained fire. An Assault weapon is designed to be much lighter and used in burst fire during a military style assault or in Close-quarters combat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-quarters_combat). Some Assault weapons have a selector switch to allow Semi-automatic fire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm) and some smaller ones do not have this option.

Some Assault weapons, with exceptions for the early versions (like the BAR), use a cut down rifle cartridge (like the AK-47) or use pistol ammunition (aka cartridges) or a variation of them.

Assault Rifles are “automatic capable.” Like the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle) (aka BAR), M16 rifle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle), AK-47 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47), M4 carbine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine), AK-74 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-74), et cetera. Assault Submachine gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submachine_gun)s (SMG) are “automatic capable.” Like the Thompson submachine gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_submachine_gun), Sterling submachine gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_submachine_gun), Beretta M1918 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_M1918) and the Uzi submachine gun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzi_submachine_gun) and the carbine version.

Assault pistols aka Machine pistol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_pistol)s and compact sub-machine guns are “automatic capable.” One of the first was the *Steyr Repetierpistole* (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_M1912) M1912/P16 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_M1912). More modern versions are like the Micro Uzi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzi#Micro-Uzi), Glock 18 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock#Glock_18), Makarov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9%C3%9718mm_Makarov) Stechkin automatic pistol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stechkin_automatic_pistol) (APS), Škorpion vz. 61 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0korpion_vz._61), and the MAC-10 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC-10) and MAC-11 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC-11).

Again the key aspect of military assault weapons is that they are capable of firing repeatedly on automatic mode. I.E. An Automatic firearm (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_firearm) that is NOT a traditional machine gun. Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

We already have Assault rifle. VQuakr (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

An Assault Rifle is a specific type of battle rifle capable of automatic fire. It does not define all automatic military weapons. As I wrote: A military "assault weapon can be a rifle, sub-machine gun or a pistol capable of automatic fire."
Politicians define an AR-15 type rifle as an assault weapon. The military does not see the AR-15 as an "Assault Rifle" but as a semi-automatic rifle. The point is the difference in the terms and use between military use and political use of the term "assault weapon." That is seriously lacking in the article. An Assault Rifle is just one of many "assault weapons" in the various militaries around the world. The USA political term seems mostly focused on the appearance of semi-automatic rifles/pistols. Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is needed, as we have assault rifle, SMG and machine pistol articles, and this article is really about the term "Assault weapon" used to refer to a particular type of firearm in the US. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Correct on specific articles. This "Assault weapon" article is based on the USA political effort to define "assault weapons" for a political purpose. And that is in stark contrast to how the militaries around the world define the term "assault weapons." Since the military terms defining "assault weapons" is ignored in the article and is in so distinctly different from the political term, that is why I believe it needs to be made clear. The military term was made first about WWI into WWII (say 1914 to 1947ish) and the political term defines itself from the 1980s. I believe it is very improper to use just the newer political term only. Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

We have articles on subjects, not names. Assault weapon (military) would be a poor name because of potential for confusion with the subject of this article. Is it even a commonly-used term in a military context? It sounds like you are just describing automatic weapons. VQuakr (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any distinct military meaning; it's just a two word sequence they have used. I remember an artillery piece that the term was used for. While there is variability within the US political uses (sometimes even within the same sentence), there are common themes to it's political usages making the latter IMO suitable and important to cover in an article. . North8000 (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The only military uses of the term I'm familiar with are for one specific automatic shotgun project (HK CAWS, "close assault weapon system"), a reasonably common misconception about one machine gun (M249 SAW translated as "squad assault weapon" rather than "squad automatic weapon") and a period when it was used in describing man-portable launchers designed for attacking fortifications (Brunswick RAW, FGM-172 SRAW, Mk 153 SMAW, M141 SMAW-D and Urban Assault Weapon). It is not used to describe any of the weapons the OP specifies. OP also confuses a number of other categories, including that the BAR was an assault rifle (it was classified as a light machine gun) and that an assault rifle is a "type of battle rifle" (doesn't fit the modern definition of "battle rifle" which is a select-fire weapon issued to individual soldiers that fires a full-power rifle bullet rather than an intermediate cartridge). Bones Jones (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like this is the only one the US Army actually calls an assault weapon....shoulder fired rocket launcher to destroy tanks. North8000 (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are sometimes about terms. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#When a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject Perhaps this one is a good candidate for that? There is no consistent "subject" underlying this article. Admittedly there is a danger, depending on how it is done it could either worsen or help the problem of the conflation of the the "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" terms/. North8000 (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Everything the OP mentioned can be covered under automatic weapon. As established in this thread, this is not a term in common military usage. VQuakr (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I just came across a State of California application BOF 4082 Military Assault Weapon Permit. Apparently the State of California defines a civilian "assault weapon" one way and a "military assault weapon" capable of automatic fire differently. See:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/mawpapp.pdf
See also: Section 4137 "Activities Sanctioned by Military -Assault Weapons" (typo is theirs) - see page 12 at:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/firearms/regs/chapter7.pdf
Then there is apparent conflict in defining military assault weapons as "personal assault weapons" in "Chapter 7 Dangerous Weapons" which includes machines guns and military assault weapons. Page 8: "(g) Military personnel permitted to use personal assault weapons in military sanctioned activities shall maintain records of those activities."
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/firearms/regs/chapter7.pdf
It appears clear to me that in California "military assault weapons" are conflated with "personal assault weapons" in the Dangerous Weapon Chapter 7 that includes automatic weapons.
Has anyone researched other American states for any clarity between "military assault weapons" and politically defined semi-automatic "assault weapons?" Curious! Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Politics includes deliberate conflation between the terms. North8000 (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

An Assault Weapon is a Selective Fire weapon capable of both Full Auto and Semi-Auto fire. The 1st standard issue Assault Weapon listed in history is generally conceded to be what is known as the STG-44 made by the Germans in WW2. This weapon WAS selective fire. Calling any NON-selective fire firearm an "Assault Weapon" is incorrect and is used only for political propaganda purposes.False Data (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That could be true for some less common usages of the term, but the more common meaning is the one that is a political invention to refer to what have become the everyday all-purpose rifles in the US. "Assault rifle" clearly includes selective fire and the political term meaning of "assault weapon" does not. And there are people who want confusion to imply that common US rifles are the same as military ones with selective fire / "machine gun" capability. And so information on the distinction between the two is important. North8000 (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)