Talk:Assault weapon (disambiguation)

Derivative meaning

I made a change to the derivative meaning. It is very important that the average reader understand that the term "assault weapon" is a military term, and should not be confused with the derivative meaning that is used purely for political purposes. We do not want Wikipedia to be a source of confusion on this issue. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying, but if we want to follow this approach, shouldn't we remove the entries for the StG 44, which has always been an assault (storm) rifle, not "weapon", and Squad Assault Weapon, which is actually a link to squad automatic weapon and would seem to be pure misdirection since the linked article never even uses the phrase "assault weapon"? With the exception of the H&K CAWS the others are distinctly different, firing a nasty explosive, incendiary or even thermobaric warhead, and are much closer to the role of an assault gun. Otherwise, how can we argue that the StG 57 and StG 58 don't belong, besides the fact that they're really battle vs. assault rifles, and the former so heavy it edges into machine rifle territory? Including squad automatic weapon also invites getting into the whole mess of what they are vs. light machine guns vs. machine rifles because of the bait and switch misdirection; if Wikipedia, but not any citable sources, is going to label them assault weapons, where do we draw the line? Hga (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hga, I think part of your reply was to the original poster, Sue. R, and part was for me, right?

Even though Squad Automatic Weapon is the official term, "squad assault weapon" does appear in numerous sources, including The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons. Since a SAW could be (and has been) plausibly referred to as an "assault weapon" in a sufficiently generic context, it belongs on the assault weapon disambiguation page, per WP:PTM. As for the StG-44, I was leaning toward removing it from the page, but maybe it ought to stay, for the same reason? Lightbreather (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it (IANAWikiLawyer :-) per wp:undue the SAW doesn't make the cut. Doubly so the StG-44, which is only in there because it's the original "assault rifle" (Sturmgewehr). Hga (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I've re-read WP:UNDUE a couple of times since your reply, and it doesn't seem to apply to what to include on a disambiguation page. Lightbreather (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Starting a discussion here in conjunction with one ongoing on the Assault weapon talk page. The Assault weapon article currently uses the word "conflate" three times. This ("conflate") is a word that comes up regularly in articles to-do with or related to assault weapons, fully automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, etc.

As a non-expert, thinking about how to present assault weapon info to other non-experts (the average reader), I would like to suggest that we either A) rename the current Assault weapon page "Assault weapon (civilian)" and make the disambiguation page the primary topic page, or B) expand the current disambig page to include any weapon (firearm or gun, civilian or military) that might possibly be confused with and referred to as an "assault weapon." The list should include any weapon whose technical, legal, political, or common name begins with "assault," or any that includes the words "assault weapon" together within its name.

I removed Stg 44 from these proposals. (Other editors question its inclusion here, and I agree.) Also, a question: Would it be worthwhile to label the "Military" list "Military and law enforcement" - or to have a separate "Law enforcement" list? Lightbreather (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Assault weapon proposal "A"

Assault weapon has various civilian and military meanings.

Civilian

• Assault gun (among civilians, gun is often used instead of firearm)
• Assault weapon (civilian), a United States legal and political term for primarily semi-automatic firearms that may look like military weapons, but are not

Military

• Assault gun (in the military, gun means artillery)
• Assault rifle, a rifle that can be fired in automatic, semi-automatic, and burst modes
• FGM-172 SRAW (Short-Range Assault Weapon)
• Heckler & Koch HK CAWS (Close Assault Weapon System)
• M202 FLASH (FLame Assault SHoulder Weapon)
• Rifleman's Assault Weapon (RAW)
• Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW)
• Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW), sometimes, incorrectly referred to as a "squad assault weapon"
• Urban Assault Weapon (UAW)

See also

• Title II weapon

Assault weapon (disambiguation) proposal "B"

Assault weapon is a United States legal and political term for primarily civilian, semi-automatic firearms that may look like military weapons, but are not.

Assault weapon may also refer to:

Military

• Assault gun (in the military terminology, gun means artillery)
• Assault rifle, a rifle that can be fired in automatic, semi-automatic, and burst modes
• FGM-172 SRAW (Short-Range Assault Weapon)
• Heckler & Koch HK CAWS (Close Assault Weapon System)
• M202 FLASH (FLame Assault SHoulder Weapon)
• Rifleman's Assault Weapon (RAW)
• Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW)
• Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW), sometimes, incorrectly referred to as a "squad assault weapon"
• Urban Assault Weapon (UAW)

See also

• Title II weapon

Lightbreather (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you address the point I made in the paragraph directly above your Proposal section?

It seemed your question was for the person who posted that section. Let me go give it a look... Lightbreather (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I mean, it sure doesn't seem to me to be a coincidence that every proper military usage of "assault weapon" we know of save the canceled Close Assault Weapon System (CAWS) program fits the assault gun niche at an infantryman's scale? And that with rare enough exceptions to invoke wp:undue the civilian use of "assault weapon" is entirely disjoint, save again for that CAWS program?

Bottom line, as far as I can tell your proposal further conflates the two, plus the correct as far as I can tell civilian etymology of assault rifle -> assault weapon, which Josh Sugarman et. al. were quite clear about using as a gun control tactic.

Now, obviously I've engaged in some synthesis in the first observation about military weapons, and we can't use that in the page, but surely we can use it in deciding how to present this.

OK, a second bottom line: what do you as a non-expert, or putting yourself into the shoes of one (you are I trust learning more and more :-), find confusing about all this? Where do we need to go to extra effort to decrease that confusion? Hga (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with the disambiguation page as it is right now. I suggest we save the hand-wringing and over-analysis for the main assault weapon article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's go for a really short description of the primary term, and not even try to define it here. So I like this edit, it might not be the ultimate, it's a definite improvement. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 18:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a bit punchier, and a good one-sentence description: "Assault weapon is an American legal and political term for certain civilian firearms, variously defined by different laws that regulate or prohibit their possession in some jurisdictions." — Mudwater ^(Talk) 18:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. We just need enough here for clear disambiguation, the disambig page is not the place to cover it. North8000 (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do we need a one-sentence description of each item in the "may also" area? It seems a bit pointless to me to duplicate information that is already in the article the link points to. It would be acceptable if these parenthesised items had helpful information, but they all seem to be there simply for POV purposes. What is the point of defining what the word "gun" means in the military? Why mention that something is short range? Why add the acronym? I think a reader can figure out the acronym on their own. These extra "descriptions" amount to mini-ledes, and I don't see how they are helpful other than to clutter up the links. I have removed them, pending discussion, leaving the single one that I feel is actually helpful. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty standard to include a very brief description with each entry, to help the reader understand what it refers to. See MOS:DABENTRY for the guidelines on this. The short descriptions that were there were pretty minimal, and mostly showed why the entry relates to "assault weapon". So, I'm going to put them back for now. But, feel free to explain how they might be there for POV purposes, I'm not seeing that offhand. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually your edit is a pretty good compromise between what was there before I removed it, and what was there after I removed the material. Your descriptions seem pretty neutral and boring and white-bread, which is how they should be. I don't see any POV now. Good job. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

All I did was revert your last edit, but if you like the way it is now, then all is well. I agree that the brief descriptions should be neutral to the point of boredom. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I need to apoligize to everyone here. I made an error when I removed the descriptions. I accidentally edited an old dif and thought I was editing the correct version. Mudwater, thanks for fixing it, and again my apoligies. (I still don't think we need to go overboard with the descriptions tho) Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly content with this page now. I did add/return "assault gun" and "assault rifle" to the military list because they are two things that may help the searcher.

For those of you who are firearms and/or military experts or enthusiasts, you read or hear "gun" and a picture of a MILITARY gun (cannon, tank) pops into your head. When a non-expert reads or hears "gun" he or she thinks of a pistol, rifle, or shotgun. So one of the first things we can do when that person types "assault weapon" into the Wikipedia search box is to help them figure out what they want to read about. The way we've got it configured now, we assume anyone who types "assault weapon" into the Wikipedia search box is looking for the legal and political term. Then we proceed with lengthy and - IMHO, overly technical and distracting - explanations of why assault weapons in the legal/political sense are not military assault weapons.

"Assault gun" and "assault rifle" links at the bottom of this page (in the See also section) get lost. And since those terms get confused with "assault weapon," that placement does NOT help the lay reader.

I might add, at some point I think we should add "assault weapon" as a gaming term, because a lot of gamers use the term (correctly or not) to refer to the firearms and weapons used in numerous games. At that point, I would suggest going to a formt like I suggested in Proposal "A" above. Then, AW as a gaming term could be added to the Civilian list. Lightbreather (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to further confuse the meaning of the term by adding WP:UNDO gaming elements to it, and I cannot imagine how such material could be reliably sourced. I'm pretty sure that those games (and the gamers) use either real-life military terms, or "political" terms, and not some third gaming term. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes regulated???

"Not all "assault weapons" are regulated, even if they should be!"

Well, thanks for telling us where your bias is....

However, all are regulated by the "20,000" gun laws in the US and its subdivisions.

And George H. W. Bush imposed an import ban on "civilian assault rifles" and shotguns, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(r) and the associated BATF regulations. The "N part" rule requires importers to use a maximum number of listed parts made abroad, and criminalizes a variety of actions totally lacking in mens rea, like replacing a Made In USA floorplate with one of foreign origin, or the mess one can get into by making any modification to an "as issue" SKS which as I understand it instantly turns an obsolescent "curio" into a rifle covered by 922(r). Hga (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have never attempted to hide my politics. I think that having them out in the open is a good way to be sure that they do not bring bias into my edits. I always put Wikipedia before my politics, and you need not take my word for it, simply take a look at my work on other gun related pages. The reason that I made that edit was to outline that many guns are called "assault weapons" even though there is not necessarily a law prohibiting them (some pro-ban groups add new guns into the category every day), and to show that most of these weapons are guns with a military look, but little or no increased "firepower". If anything, I would think those to be "pro-gun" points of view. My attempt was to bring more neutrality and factuality into the article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted this bold addition. The phrase "may look like military weapons, but are not" does not strike me as helpful in giving more information to the reader of this disambiguation page. The sentence already identifies them as civilian, and whether something "looks" military is really in the eye of the beholder. I really do not see any need for expansion here; a broader discussion of the term should be happening at Assault weapon. VQuakr (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a good case to make for brevity, which I attempted to outline above. I'm not that staunch on the opinion anyway. I really only added it because it seemed to be a reasonably neutral position, not that I am in complete agreement with it. Generally speaking, I have found that the middle ground is the area where everyone is unhappy, lol. Be well. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed text from the disambig page

I removed the following 2 paragraphs from the dab page. A disambiguation page is a non-article page, and this text looks like it should be in an article, aside from the fact that it reeks of original research:

• Note : Contrary to much misguided politics and a complete lack of understanding regarding firearms many politicians in many states have wrongly defined and attempted to enact unconstitutional laws attempting to define and ban semi-automatic rifles capable solely of single shot fire as an "Assault weapon" - "Assault Weapons" and Assault Rifles" Are legally one in the same- they are designed Primarily for Military use and fire solely in either Fully-automatic OR "Selective Fire" (by means of a selector switch) which allows the weapon to fire either in Fully-automatic or semi-automatic mode of operation - some Fully-automatic Assault weapons also have a "Burst-fire" capability on the selector switch that allows 3 round "Bursts" as well- This is a design feature designed to save ammunition and also makes the weapon more controllable under recoil when firing.

The Commonly sold AR-15 rifle designed strictly for the civilian market for example is often the target of this politically misled terminology regarding Assault Rifles. The AR-15 (AR- which stands for "Armalite Rifle" (The name of the firearms manufacturer) is black on color typically and from am exterior Cosmetic apperance solely "Resembles" the military version fully-automatic M-16 OR M-4 rifles used by the U.S. Military. AR-15'S are "NOT" used by the military and fire solely in semi-automatic mode of operation capable of using 15 or 30 round magazines normally - are popular with civilians for small game hunting, self-defence (especially for home -defence with women) target shooting and competition shooting .

Chris the speller ^yack 13:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)