Talk:Assault weapons legislation in the United States

Sources

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Coatrack?

This article was created and filled with content only about the United States, while claiming to be about worldwide bans. The article was populated with only US-centric information on the day it was created, with essentially zero further development of the worldwide component since then. This strikes me as a Coatracking. It has NO coverage that is not found in the existing US-specific ban articles, thus it merely repeats US specific information found more fully elsewhere in wikipedia, without adding a single scintilla of new information. Coatrack. Anastrophe (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it was just about U.S. assault weapons bans (active, expired, and proposed) until about Aptil 14, when another editor added a U.K. section with no content. Rather than war with that editor, I changed the lead. Honestly, although other countries have banned or otherwise regulated firearms, I know of no other country that referred/refers to their actions as assault weapons bans (though perhaps when referring to U.S. actions/proposals, since the U.S. does). Do you? Lightbreather (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If that is the case, then there is simply no need for this article. Assault weapons ban should be a disambig to the two extant articles, Federal assault weapons ban, and the failed 2013 ban attempt. Anastrophe (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that is one option. Another is to develop the state, county, and municipal sections of this article so that readers who want to learn about AWBs can read about them here, and not have to dig through other articles - as they do now. There could be other options, too. Maybe individual articles re the AWBs passed in Connecticut, Maryland, New York, etc. - like the California AWB of 1989. Honestly, until very recently, if you Googled or did a Wikipedia search on "assault weapons ban," one might get the impression that the only one there ever was was the federal one that expired in 2004. Lightbreather (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Until there's actual content in place that's not a duplicate of the two extant articles, I'd say disambig is the way to go. For that matter, since this is an umbrella title, it could stay a disambig and merely also point to articles on state bans, etc. Anastrophe (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I still have yet to see any content in this article that is unique to this article. All information in it is covered in other articles. That means that it should instead by a disambig page, otherwise, it's a WP:Coatrack. Can we agree to change this into a disambig? Anastrophe (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is very poorly written. It is just a list of antigun talking points and the reader leaves with no idea of what the point of the article is supposed to be, let alone an explanation of what an assault weapon ban is.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Assault weapons ban - please stop

Sue, re this recent edit on the "Assault weapons ban" article.[1]

The edit summary says, "Makes more sense now. And is in line with Wikipedia policies," but what it appears to be is a mass reversion of everything I did after Mike S. 1. added some material [2] to it yesterday and 2. removed the hatnote [3] or whatever that's called. (Mass reversion except for date= that you change to year= and month= - That was new and I have no problem with it.)

So, you wiped out everything I wrote, and misrepresented what you did in your edit summary.

Notice that I did not just revert what Mike added. I studied it carefully and edited it. He and I had a good conversation today - no hard feelings. Why do you insist on following me around and reverting my edits? What you've reverted that article to is not factual; it misrepresents what the source says.

Please, please stop. And please leave me alone - no more WP:HOUNDING, please! --Lightbreather (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that:

• Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#New York be merged into Assault weapons ban#New York
• Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Connecticut be merged into Assault weapons ban#Connecticut
• Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Maryland be merged into Assault weapons ban#Maryland

leaving behind the Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#State actions summary section.

Since the assault weapons bans in these states pre-date the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the content in the related "Gun control after" article sections can easily be explained in the context of "Assault weapons ban" article, and the "Assault weapons ban" article is of a reasonable size that the merging of "Gun control after" will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Also, god forbid, if another mass shooting sets off another national debate about assault weapons bans, we won't need to start another "Gun control after..." article.

Until recently, if a reader did a Wikipedia search on the term "assault weapons ban" he/she might get the impression that the only one that ever existed was the federal ban of 1994-2004. That reader would have to dig and click through to numerous articles to try to find info about state bans - and much of that in tabular format. The Assault weapons ban article lets the reader read about the larger topic in one place, without all that digging around. This is why people go to encyclopedia's in the first place. Lightbreather (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. (proposer) For reasons given when proposal/discussion was started. Lightbreather (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is precisely what a disambiguation page is for. As it stands, this article is completely unencyclopedic: it claims to be about assault weapons ban, but instead is merely a fluffed up list - it does not in any way describe what an assault weapon ban is. Anastrophe (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

"As it stands...": The article is start-class and still being actively developed. It has the same potential to be an article specifically about a certain kind of gun law as the articles Concealed carry in the United States and Open carry in the United States. By my count, not one of the 19 sources already cited in this start-class article are duplicated in:

• Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
• Gun laws in the United States by state
• Gun laws in Connecticut
• Gun laws in Hawaii
• Gun laws in Maryland
• Gun laws in Massachusetts
• Gun laws in New Jersey
• Gun laws in New York

Though two are used in Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, and nine are used in the Federal AWB article. Lightbreather (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Different references do not a unique article make. The purpose of an encyclopedia article on assault weapon bans should be to explain what the subject of the article is. Aside from the tautologous first sentence of the article, it does not in any way explain what an assault weapon ban it, it merely iterates through existing bans, which are all covered in other articles. There is no benefit to the reader in duplicating content; it is encyclopedic to direct the reader to the real articles. Thus, expand disambig, eliminate this article, since it offers no explanation of the subject. Anastrophe (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

There is content in this article that is unique to this article, and I plan to continue to develop it. For example compare Concealed carry in the United States when it was first created in November 2004 [4] to today, in 2014. [5] That's all I'm going to say on the matter for today. Lightbreather (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Counter proposal

I propose that the ENTIRE article Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting be merged into this one as this article lacks the parameter problems of the other and it removes the need for any debate over WP:UNDUE regarding the Sandy Hook incident and any political movement (not just anything gun related).

• Support per my reasoning above. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 15:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as GCASHESS isn't just about assault weapons bans. I would support merging the GCASHESS material not to-do with assault weapons/bans into Gun politics in the United States in addition to my original merger proposal (above this counter proposal). Lightbreather (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose this has already been discussed here and here, with a clear consensus for a stand alone article. I can't help but notice the underlying pro gun enthusiast bias. WP:UNDUE is provable, if this is undue then the nominator is suggesting that all shootings have the same impact on calls for legislation. I asked the nominator to provide sources documenting this. He was unable to provide any and went on a tangent reciting the history of these unfortunate events. From my own research, Columbine and V Tech received similar attention, but WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST is never a valid argument. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: rename

Since (as I've just learned) there is already a disambig page for Assault weapons ban, and there is no content in this article that encyclopedically describes an assault weapon ban, this article should instead by renamed to List of assault weapons bans. There still remains no content in this article that is unique - that is not already covered more fully in each of the respective articles it should list, rather than duplicate (every entry has a 'main' or 'see also', which is what belongs in a list). Anastrophe (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Though I'd support deleting the disambig page. Lightbreather (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Rationale? The disambig page should be expanded, this should be converted into a list. This meets the needs of directing readers to the correct place to get the encyclopedic information they are looking for. With no unique content, this article is merely a duplication of information.Anastrophe (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

For the same reasons given in the preceding discussion "Merger proposal" started earlier today, esp. in paragraph that states "Until recently..." If you reply to that there, I'll discuss it. Lightbreather (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is "Assault weapons ban" an appropriate title for this article?

The following discussion 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.

---

I have started a Requested move (below), and asked to have this RfC closed. The request move process seems like a more appropriate process for this than an RfC. Lightbreather (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Is "Assault weapons ban" an appropriate title for this article? (FWIW: It is the title that it was created with.) Lightbreather (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

For reference, these are the Before and After (the article was renamed and the lead changed) leads:

Before

After

An assault weapons ban is a form of gun control in the United States that defines and bans assault weapons. A federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was enacted in 1994, and expired in 2004. Attempts to renew the ban failed, as have attempts to pass a new ban, such as the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (AWB 2013). Seven U.S. states have assault weapons bans: three were enacted before the 1994 federal ban and four more passed before the federal ban expired.

Assault weapons legislation addresses gun control in the United States with regard to the definition and banning (if included in the bill) of the sale and/or manufacture of assault weapons. A federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was enacted in 1994, and expired in 2004. Attempts to renew the ban failed, as have attempts to pass a new ban, such as the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (AWB 2013). Seven U.S. states have assault weapons bans: three were enacted before the 1994 federal ban and four more passed before the federal ban expired.

And all of the material in the article is about bans that are or were enacted - no bills. Lightbreather (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. (author) It's what they're called by a preponderence of WP:V, WP:RS, as well as the majority of the general populace. To title this article anything other than "assault weapons ban" (as it was originally titled, and unilaterally changed without discussion) is WP:POVNAMING. Lightbreather (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Per author, and common sense. Thenub314 (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per the Lead written by the Author, its not just about bans. The article is about gun control laws (get it, "legislation") concerning the identification and definition of certain firearms and then the steps that were taken to further regulate a variety of firearms, rifles, pistols, and shotguns. The move has resulted in a redirect, so anyone searching for the term will still arrive at the content. The new title also allows for a greater expansion of the article now or in the future. For example, this could become a home for proposed, but failed legislation regarding assault weapons. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Keep in mind that these types of laws usually only ban future possession, sale or manufacture and create a grandfathered class of people who must register their lawfully owned firearms prior to a certain date. People mistakenly say that "Action Arms Uzis" are banned in California, yet there are thousands of them legally owned and registered in California, albeit they are not transferrable to other citizens within the state who were too young or too poor to purchase them before further sale was disallowed. This is a common misnomer such as people saying that "machine guns are banned" when in fact just the creation of transferreable machine guns were prohibited after the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 FOPA. I think legislation is the more accurate term, without misleading the reader.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Of course it isn't an appropriate title - this is supposed to be an international encyclopaedia, and titles should't assume 'U.S.' is the default. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Where a less accurate term is proposed to replace a more accurate term, the more accurate term wins. In the case at hand, we can refer to legislation which refers in the legislation to controls on "assault weapons" but the concept of a "ban" requires a settled definition of the term, and requires that the legislation actually "ban" such weapons. It is determined that there is no such definition, so the change would not help the Wikipedia reader, which is the goal of article titles. Collect (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support with old lead, although I'd suggest Assault weapons bans in the United States, given the article's US focus. I can't help noticing that the word ban appears in almost every sentence. I'll count myself as having been educated by this discussion. I hadn't realised that many assault weapons' bans in the US allow people to keep their assault weapons. (This should be made clear in the lead.) Nonetheless "assault weapons bans" is clearly the common name and IMHO accurate enough. Most bans will have a list of exceptions but it doesn't stop them being called bans. "Assault weapons legislation" is too vague and wishy-washy. It could include (hypothetical) legislation requiring every householder to possess at least one uzi. It doesn't sufficiently indicate the legislative intent of the laws which is to ban assault weapons. And Assault weapons legislation which tries to stop most people from possessing assault weapons subject to some exceptions which vary from place to place is too long. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 22:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment seeing the word "ban" in every sentence is what is known as search engine optimization. It is done for a reason.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• That's one way to look at it. Another is that "ban" is the word that the preponderance of sources use for the topic in general. When editors substitute "act" or "bill" or "legislation" or "law" instead, that's done for a reason. Lightbreather (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, the reason is to be accurate.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• If thousands of reliable sources call the topic in general "assault weapons ban," but a handful of WP editors insist on calling the topic in general something else, that's WP:POVNAMING, not accuracy. Lightbreather (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Scalhotrod (talk · contribs), where did I write that this article is "not just about bans"? Lightbreather (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• OK LB, take a deep breath and try to take this comment with a grain of salt. This is perhaps your biggest failing as a writer in my opinion, you read and interpret your writing seemingly in your "own voice" only and never seem to review it as others may interpret it. You have a meaning or intention in your head when you write it and then assume (and act with your edits) that this is the only way to state it. That's what blogs are for, but not Wikipedia._{This comment has been stricken at the request of Lightbreather and in the interest of good WP Editor relations. The User was correct, it would have been appropriate to raise the issue on their Talk page. My apologies for not doing so.} --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep this on content. (If you want to talk about me, please take it to my talk page.) Where did I write that this article is not just about bans? I titled this article "Assault weapons ban" because that's what a preponderance of WP:V, WP:RS, as well as the general populace refer to them as. That is the ONLY reason I chose the title. I've said this before, but here it is again: If a reader were to rely solely on Wikipedia before I wrote this article, he or she might get the impression that the only AWB there ever was was the federal one that expired 10 years ago. He or she might not easily learn - via Wikipedia anyway - that there actually are state AWBs in force! That does not reflect well on the project. Lightbreather (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Mike Searson (talk · contribs), regardless of how you or Scal like to think of or refer to these laws, bans, legislation - do a preponderance of WP:V, WP:RS, as well as the general populace, refer to them as "assault weapons bans"? Lightbreather (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• I know, you're open minded and I'm a stupid jerk. But I found humor in the name of the first link here:[6]--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• AFG, nothing here implies anyone is a "stupid jerk" let's not degenerate into name calling or perceived name calling. I think LB is trying to be persuasive, pointing out one phrase is in far more common uses then the other. Let's keep it civil. Thenub314 (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Ummm, I called it to myself, how is that uncivil? You must be new at this.Oh and I believe the acronym you want is AGF. :)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you meant he insulted you. Thenub314 (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually LB is a she. No need to apologize we're pretty much good natured rivals with a very strong difference of opinion, that's why I try to use a bit of self-depreciating humor with my interactions.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, Mike, I think we've had a similar discussion before, and that link is... noteworthy. But not as much as the fact that there are about 20X more "assault weapons ban" results than there are "assault weapons legislation" results. And that the actual name of Feinstein's proposal was the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013," as shown in the first two links here: [7] It wasn't titled the "Assault Weapons Legislation of 2013." And the common name for the federal ban of 1994-2004 was the "assault weapons ban," not the "assault weapons legislation." And per WP:TITLE:

Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable.

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs), I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying you prefer "Assault weapon legislation" over "Assault weapon ban", or do you have some other title in mind? Lightbreather (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'd prefer an article that is discussing U.S.-specific legislation to make this clear in the title. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Like Assault weapons legislation in the US? It would certainly be more accurate.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Or, Assault weapons bans in the U.S.? ;-) I'm all for WP:CSB - but re this topic, are there any other countries that have assault weapons bans? Lightbreather (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Most of them just ban everything, period. I think New Zealand has a list of firearms that are not importable, similar to the 94 ban we were subjugated to, but they allow silencers with no paperwork or illegal government tax.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I hear you, Mike. But did they/do they refer to them as assault weapons bans, as the preponderance of WP:RS and average Janes and Joes do here? Lightbreather (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, AW is pretty much an American term. I think they use militaristic or some other neologism like "Chazzwazzers" in the commonwealth type countries.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Topic titles should indicate the topic. Which for this article is U.S. legislation. Just how hard is this to understand? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Andy, I get that you think "U.S." should be in the title. What I'm asking is, if you were going to name this article, what would you name it? Lightbreather (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure it matters that much whether it is 'legislation' or 'ban' - and frankly I think that the relentless forking of U.S.-firearms-related articles into multiple sub-topics is unnecessary, and detrimental to proper coverage of the topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Immediate comment above notwithstanding, excellent point Andy. I should know better than to be so geocentric. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Collect (talk · contribs) et al., could you cite a policy here? I'm reading your (plural) arguments, and I can see that you (plural) prefer "legislation," but which policy-based arguments are you basing this preference on? Lightbreather (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Read WP:Article titles as being about, of all things, article titles. the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable. as a start. Add a spoonful of The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. An ounce of Ambiguous[6] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. and finish the recipe with titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. Note that the page cited is a Wikipedia policy and thus ought to be followed here. Though I had thought this was where everyone ought to have started. Also note that titles should be used to anticipate what the reader will search for, and use of terms which are too precise or which may mislead any reader are to be avoided per policy. Collect (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That is the policy I gave [8] above:

Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles [Federal Assault Weapons Ban, anyone?], precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable.

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

And readers are more likely to search for "assault weapons ban" than "assault weapons legislation." Lightbreather (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting assertion but ... "Assault weapons ban" gets all of 240 Google hits (paging to end of list). "Assault weapons legislation" gets 272 such hits. It is certainly not shown that "ban" is more widely used than "legislation" and virtually every usage is US-related. As it is clear that "legislation" is the more accurate term, the choice appears simple when searches find similar numbers of results for each term. The alternative is to determine the most common term internationally for such weapons - which would be an interesting RfC. Likely "Military-style weapons" or the like, if someone can come up with a generally accepted definition thereof. Collect (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC) .

Collect, re: your claims that "'Assault weapons ban' gets all of 240 Google hits" and that "'Assault weapons legislation' gets 272 such hits." What do you mean by "paging to end of list"? Your numbers are WAY off from the results I get. Using the "Find sources: 'assault weapons ban'" link at the top of this RfC I get 772,000 results,[9] and when I use the "Find sources: 'assault weapons legislation'" link at the top of this RfC I get 35,100 results [10] - less than one-twentieth of the "ban" results. Where/How are you coming up with 240 and 272? Your numbers are false - unless you've left out a lot of info about how you're filtering the results. Lightbreather (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Lightbreather asked above whether there are any other countries that have assault weapons bans. That brought to mind the following from John Howard after the Port Arthur Massacre:

Re whether this article should have "U.S." in its title -- in its present form it certainly should. If it does not, it should present info on (e.g.) the following from John Howard after the Port Arthur Massacre:

"... [O]n April 28, 1996, Martin Bryant, a psychologically disturbed man, used a semiautomatic Armalite rifle and a semiautomatic SKS assault weapon to kill 35 people in a murderous rampage in Port Arthur, Tasmania. After this wanton slaughter, I knew that I had to use the authority of my office to curb the possession and use of the type of weapons that killed 35 innocent people. ..."[11]

I read this as an assertion that (psychologically disturbed) people don't kill people, (particular types of) guns kill people,

Googling around re assault weapons bans, I stumbled across this. I'm not sure how (or if) that fits into this discussion, but I thought I would mention it.

Re "ban" vs. "legislation" in the title, it appears to me that the article currently focuses much more on "ban" than it does on "legislation". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:20, 6 May 2014 (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.

Future of this article

Personally I like the idea of this article and I'm glad to see a place where various forms or versions of Assault Weapon legislation can be collected and presented. Its a good start, but it needs expansion. I'd like to see failed legislation content added which hopefully will curb the creation of stub articles about bills that never made it anywhere. A line or two of content IMO is better than an AfD'd article. I'd also like to see more in depth explanation of how the term "assault weapon" was used, applied, and/or defined in each piece of enacted legislation. We've had so much discussion and derision over this controversial term that this could be the place where we start to shed light on misconceptions and finally distinguish fact from media hype. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should take it slow. The name of this article is still up in the air, and its scope, too. Lightbreather (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Why, you move as fast as you want when it suits you. Plus consensus is leaning towards the "legislation" as its more encyclopedic and less controversial, the redirect accomplishes your intention of having the phrase "assault weapon ban" associated with the article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to discuss me, take it to my talk page please. The subject here is content. Consensus is not determined by a simple vote count. The reasons given must be weighed as well, and the arguments opposing keeping/"renaming" this article "Assault weapons ban" are weak and contrary to WP:TITLE. Lightbreather (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, I agree, the arguments in favor of using the word ban are pretty weak.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I want to thank Lightbreather for so wholeheartedly embracing the ideas that I presented for this article. From the title to the scope and the content, its pretty much how I envisioned what a comprehensive article on this subject would look like and I thank LB for helping to achieve it. I find the recent changes quite logical and organized and from a scholastic perspective, I am of the opinion that its fairly informative. There are still some minor issues, but those will be worked out over time. Mike, what do you think of it? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not embrace them, but I am trying to work collaboratively - as I always do. The title, I still think is the WP:WRONGVERSION as Drmies suggested - and I hope you will accept the compromise proposed below - but I don't mind having some proposed/failed info, sectioned as it is now for the readers' ease. Lightbreather (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Drmies did not state that it was the WP:WRONGVERSION or even give the opinion of which version it was. Actually quite the contrary, please do not misuse an Admin's words. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I said Drmies suggested, not stated. (to suggest: put forward for consideration. to state: express something definitely or clearly.)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and viewpoint, but given your most recent series of edits it looks like you've accepted my ideas for this article fairly well.... :) As for collaboration, you seem to have your own definition and viewpoint on that as well. Mostly this comes across as making edits or writing content your way and only your way. But that seems to have changed as well, embracing the idea that this is a "group effort" is a good thing. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"given your," "looks like you've," "you seem to have," Please stop with the "you" talk and keep it on content. "Mostly this comes across as..." If you want to talk about me, take it to an appropriate talk page, else - again - please keep it on content. I do not like you speculating about my motives. Please stop. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, they stop saying things like, "I do not...", "I am trying...", "I always do.", "I still think...", "I don't mind..." and making the conversation about "you". Otherwise its kind of appropriate for basic communication. I hope your vacation is going well. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"I do not," "I am trying," and so on are appropriate ways to communicate one's own understanding of a thing or one's own feelings, intentions, and opinions, and they are NOT about making the conversation about whomever uses them.

For instance, when I wrote: "I think we should take it slow. The name of this article is still up in the air, and its scope, too." That was per WP:TALK#USE Communicate. And when I asked Andy: "I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying you prefer 'Assault weapon legislation' over 'Assault weapon ban', or do you have some other title in mind?" That was a WP:AVOIDYOU acceptable use of "you."

But mostly, what I'm saying is, let's PLEASE keep it on content. My vacation is going pretty well, considering. ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Illinois

Does not the state of Illinois have laws barring the legal possession of Modern Sporting Rifles as well, or are they only prohibited in a few cities?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the status on that... But talk about made-up words! Modern sporting rifle was coined in 2009 by Defense Procurement Manufacturing Services founder Randy Luth and used by the National Shooting Sports Foundation to market the AR-15 platform to hunters and others sportsmen. The Google search "illinois state ban modern sporting rifle site:illinois.gov" gives 8 results [12]; "illinois state ban assault weapon site:illinois.gov" gives 347 results. [13]

Lightbreather (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Illinois does not have state-level restrictions on firearms that have been legally defined as assault weapons, but some local governments do. The law that set up the state's concealed carry system, enacted on July 9, 2013, also established state preemption for certain areas of gun law. One of these preempted areas was bans or other restrictions on assault weapons, except that laws passed before July 20, 2013 (i.e. within ten days of the law coming into effect) would be grandfathered in. So local assault weapon laws that were already on the books at the time are still in effect, and also a number of local governments passed new laws before the deadline. Here are two stories about this from the Chicago Tribune: "Municipalities rush to pass assault weapons limits before Friday's deadline", "Some suburbs pass assault weapon restrictions, others dissuaded by gun owners". — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. @Lightbreather: The reference you provided, from The Outdoor Wire, does not support the statement that the term "modern sporting rifle" was coined in 2009 by the National Shooting Sports Foundation. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

LB, did you know that the term "assault weapon" was coined by Josh Sugarman in the 1980s to purposefully confuse antigunners who were and are ignorant about firearms? His reasoning was that they would confuse semiautomatic look-alike rifles with military versions. Obviously he was correct.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I know that is one of several notions re: the origins of the term - including that the gun industry itself cooked it up, or the media - but none has been proven definitively, whereas the origin of "modern sporting rifle" is clear. Lightbreather (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: I'm closing this on Lightbreather's request: No move. This has run long enough and no one has contributed in over a week. This is kind of an interesting discussion since there is really only one contributor who makes a policy-based argument. Lightbreather essentially argues that the previous move was done out of process (an argument reiterated by Blue-Haired Lawyer), and she may well have a point, but it's not supported by a consensus of editors. She also argues that it's "Recognizable, Natural, Precise, Concise, and Consistent", but this is neither argued nor explained. Collect basically argues that the move request is out of process; this admin disagrees with that since the RfC was being closed as the RM was being started--though it sure is bothersome, and I wonder if the lack of participation in this RM isn't due to editors being asked to comment twice, basically. Scalhotrod objects on similar procedural grounds, with a somewhat nasty remark thrown in, and both are neither here nor there. Thenub314's argument for neutrality doesn't take flight, and the JSTOR argument isn't very valid either--common sense already dictates that the exact phrase needn't be that searchable in that way, and from the third sentence of Wikipedia:Article titles one can infer the same. Mike Searson offers "we must strive for accuracy and neutrality"--well, sure, but if that's all you have to say than a closing admin could just as well base an opposite vote on that argument--an opposite vote "per Mike" being cleverly provided by the aforementioned Thenub. Is that everyone? No, we still have Celestra, who gets the apple as today's teacher's pet: "The current article is about multiple bans and the proposed title is singular, misleading ... and assumes that U.S. is implied". This is a valid argument opposing the move, and it seals the deal.

But not so fast: as the hardest-working admin this side of Dennis Brown, I looked at the previous RfC as well, where fortunately there are more extensive comments (as I mentioned before, I suspect that editors were loath to argue twice). Celestra's argument is found there as well, in the comments made by Scalthotrod, possibly Mike Searson (though their point is lost in some verbiage about toy Uzis or something like that), AndytheGrump, and Collect. Besides Thenub and Lightbreather, BlueHaired Lawyer supports the renaming; the first two actually don't argue much, and the latter's "'Assault weapons legislation' is too vague and wishy-washy. It could include (hypothetical) legislation requiring every householder to possess at least one uzi", is unconvincing and fails as a reductio ad absurdum.

So! In short, the article should not be moved. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Drmies (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Assault weapons legislation → Assault weapons ban – This article's name was "Assault weapons ban" but it got renamed by another editor as a way to fix his problem on another page. His problem on the other page was that it had a link to "Assault weapons ban" in its See also section. Three times he removed it; two times he claimed that the article was already linked in the article [14][15] (it wasn't) and once he gave no reason at all, but deleted it as part of a larger edit [16] (scroll down). Having deleted it three times, his next move was to unilaterally move/rename the linked-to article [17] and declared the problem "resolved". [18] I started an RfC to move/rename it back to its original title, but having discovered this process, I'd like to close the RfC and use this process instead. The move/rename of this article was WP:DE, and the new title is WP:POVNAMING and against WP:TITLE. Lightbreather (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Rename, as nominator. "Assault weapons ban" is, per WP:CRITERIA: Recognizable, Natural, Precise, Concise, and Consistent with other article titles (like Federal Assault Weapons Ban and Assault Weapons Ban of 2013). Lightbreather (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose noting that no strong positive consensus for such a move has been shown. (The RfC above from the same OP, in fact, appears to show a balance against the move) The WP:DEADLINE has not yet arrived. Page moves ought not be undertaken lightly, or on momentary or ephemeral debate, but on a long-term basis only. Collect (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC) (btw, implicit attacks on another editor are not really a strong argument on any talk page anywhere on Wikipedia) Collect (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

As someone recently said to me, "RfCs are not a vote." [19] But more than that, this process is the appropriate process for this situation. I apologize for not knowing that before and starting an RfC instead. Also, please note in instruction box above: "Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil." Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You started an RfC. You then stopped the RfC at the one day mark after it was clearly not proceeding on the course you sought. Then you start a "requested move" which, frankly, is a form of RfC - but simply giving you a second bite of the apple. Problem is -- the same editors who did not back your RfC in the first place are not all that likely to back this one.. Yes - these are not' "votes" but absent any reasonable expectation that you have a consensus for your proposal, it is highly unlikely to gain consensus this time either. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose we must strive for accuracy and neutrality.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per Mike, we are looking for neutrality. Unfortunately I think Mike is wrong about what is Neutral. According to policy "Article titles should reflect common usage" and as the links discussed on this page show, Assault weapons ban is far more common usage then "Assault weapons legislation". Given that JSTOR comes up with zero results on this phrase, I would even go so far to suggest the phrase is a type of synthesis. We would be wordsmithing (or at least promoting) a new phrase to make to satisfy some contributors incorrect notion of Neutrality. Thenub314 (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know about that, partner, seems more like SEO on the part of people who admire the type of legislation that they have in North Korea.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Do you intend sarcasim or humor is n the above comment? Or should the words be taken at their plain meaning? Thenub314 (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Agree for the reasons I gave in the RFC. Since this article was only recently moved from "Assault weapons ban" to "Assault weapons legislation", absent consensus supporting this move the default position is to move it back to the stable title. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 09:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Even though Assault weapons legislation is more encyclopedic, less controversial, and given the redirect that was created in the process anyone searching for the term will still find it? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• OPPOSE THIS PROCESS and the MOVE (see RfC above) - Lightbreather is not getting her way in the above RfC, so she is starting this process before that discussion has finished. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

This is about the process, per WP:MOVE, that is SUPPOSED to be used when a controversial article is unilaterally moved without discussion. I apologize for first starting an RfC, but I didn't know about this process when you unilaterally moved this article without discussion. Please leave the requested move tag or whatever it's called in place until the process is complete. Also, please note that the process says: "Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil." Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I have asked for help at the Teahouse about how to restore the Requested move listing and date. That is here: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#How to restore date on a Requested move Lightbreather (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - The current article is about multiple bans and the proposed title is singular, misleading (in that it is the common name of the federal AWB and the article includes other bans) and assumes that U.S. is implied. "Assault weapons legislation" is better on two of those, but I think a better title might be "United States legislation to ban assault weapons" or "Summary of United ...". Either of those titles, while long, better describe the actual content. Celestra (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move/Rename compromise

Based on edits of the past 15 days [20][21][22][23] related to this article's name (originally "Assault weapons ban"), and on the comments in the RfC above, and on the comments in the RM above, I have moved/renamed "Assault weapons legislation" (chosen and changed unilaterally by one editor) to "Assault weapons bans in the United States." I hope that is a compromise that all can agree to. Lightbreather (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Compromise? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Lightbreather (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I understood the request, I'm just not sure why you consider the new title a compromise. The crux of the issue is the use of the word "ban", adding "United States" to the title simply narrows the scope of the article. Furthermore, Drmies closed the Move Request saying that it should not be moved. Why are you trying to circumvent their decision? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I just closed the RM. What I think is next is a. people stop moving stuff and b. some arguments are hammered out on the talk page. In fact, I'm going to move-protect this for the while: two moves (were there more?) done by way of BOLDness is enough for now. Scalhotrod, I really have no opinion, though I can see arguments for this new title based on conversations here and the actual content of the article, which (currently) is exclusively about the US. But that doesn't matter--if it's the WP:WRONGVERSION I'm protecting, this can always be undone. I would suggest that you all (and Lightbreather, you moved this, it's kind of your responsibility, per the Pottery Barn, maybe you should notify some people or a project) discuss this here, briefly and cordially. On another note, Scalhotrod, I appreciate your not moving this thing right back and Lightbreather, I'm a bit surprised--not miffed, but surprised. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, I think the response I just posted to Scal will answer most of your musings, but one thing you wrote confuses me: "Scalhotrod, I appreciate your not moving this thing right back." What did you mean by that? Because by my reading of the article's history, he moved this thing right back three times.[24][25][26] Lightbreather (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• My apologies. I thought I checked, but I guess I didn't check correctly--or maybe I got confused over what it was called at which time. So, to summarize, and correct me if I'm missing something. You moved it to "ban". Then Hotrod moves it to "legislation". Then you moved it back. Then Hotrod moved it forth again. Then you moved it back again. Then Hotrod moved it forth again. Ban, legislation--I'm looking at this history, puzzled about two things, the first being how I did not see that. Alzheimer's, maybe. The second is, what is wrong with the two of you? For now I'll just say about Hotrod that they impulsively revert per WP:KNEEJERK, but you? You started an RfC, then a Move Request, then a Move Review, then an ArbCom enforcement question which did not ask for any enforcement, and all the while you're move-warring? Drmies (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• No problem. First, please note what I wrote below in my offer to Scal. Neither one of us (he nor I) have been stellar editors, especially today, and your sequence of events is sort of true, but it leaves out a few things.

I created this article on 13 March 2014. And it went through a few rounds of edits, including other editors, but had been pretty stable. On 30 April 2014, a link to it was added to the "See also" section of the Gun politics in the U.S. (GPUS) article.[27] Scal deleted that link not once, not twice, but three times [28][29][30] between May 1st and May 5th. I started a discussion about this,[31] and when he realized his "See also" deletes weren't going to stick, he came over here from GPUS and moved/renamed the article, unilaterally, to a name he preferred, giving an untruthful edit summary [32] and thus, as he put it, resolving his "See also" problem on the GPUS article. And increasing his tally of reverts in pursuit of his goal - to diminish if not wipe-out an article or reference to an article that has the words "assault weapons ban" in it - to four.

Yes, at that point I reverted his move/rename - one time - but I also gave a truthful edit summary, citing policy.[33] And I also, immediately, started a discussion on his page to try to resolve the problem (asking him to start a discussion on the article talk page, with arguments and sources).[34] He immediately moved/renamed this article again,[35] (that's five reverts in pursuit of his goal now) and replied to the discussion I'd started on his talk page with this comment: "Do you worry or even consider how much evidence you're piling up against yourself for a case of WP:OWNERSHIP to be made for a myriad of articles?"[36] I could have pushed my advantage, since he was the first one to move/rename this article, but I did not because policy says that is edit warring. So, yes, I started an RfC, because it was clear from the discussion I'd started on his talk page that he was not going to budge, and he also hadn't started a discussion here on this page, like I'd asked him to do... (Oh! Except for starting one called Future of this article - essentially telling me the title discussion was over.)

The next day, May 7, I started a Requested move when I realized that was the appropriate process for this problem (a move that had been done unilaterally, without discussion). At the same time, I asked to have the RfC closed. And today, May 16, after it was clear that the article was not going to be returned to its original, stable title, I made a bold move to a compromise title. And I pushed it, just as Scal had done 11 days ago. Scal didn't just knee-jerk. He has sustained edits against policy in pursuit of his goal. He 1. Reverted the same wording repeatedly between May 1st and May 5th. And 2. On his talk page, in reply to a discussion that I started in good faith, commented with the purpose of discouraging me from making additional contributions. Both of those are examples of ownership behavior, and per those examples, his comments have been "purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the article altogether" (about me and my "issues," though no evidence was given).

None of these things have seemed to leave a smudge on Scal (that I can see), but here I stand covered in mud because today I engaged in editing behaviors that he does regularly, as the evidence shows. Have I failed to present this evidence properly up to this point? Am I being held to a higher standard? I think pressing for a compromise is the right, next thing to do. How about you? And thanks again for all your time - I truly do appreciate it. Lightbreather (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is, no-one gave me any strokes for starting a discussion on Scal's talk page [37] after his first unilateral move of this article's original title. Or for starting the RfC above after his second move (I think Thenub314 recognized my effort on that somewhere on another talk page or maybe in an edit summary). Or for showing restraint and not just reverting his third move. Scal started no discussion on my talk page. He started no RfC. He started no RM. He just reverted to his preferred article title three times in a row. Even after I'd started THIS discussion - and a fairly civil one, I think. His reply was just a snarky, one-word comeback: "Compromise?" at 8:59 (and how does THAT help anyone come to an agreement?) and his third revert at 9:00. Lightbreather (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Scal, Drmies closed the RM saying that it should not be moved (backed to its original title). I disagree with his decision, and I was disappointed, but I appreciate that he put a lot of thought into it. And I'm not trying to circumvent it.

1. Blue-Haired Lawyer's support for the original title included this comment: "although I'd suggest Assault weapons bans in the United States, given the article's US focus."
2. In making his decision, Drmies wrote this: Celestra [said]: "'The current article is about multiple bans and the proposed title is singular, misleading ... and assumes that U.S. is implied'. This is valid argument opposing the move, and it seals the deal."
3. There are already WP articles with "ban" in the title: Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. Plus the Assault weapons ban disambiguation page.
4. There is a WP article titled Speed limits in the United States. (Not "Speed legislation in the United States.")

For THESE reasons, I chose to move/rename the article to "Assault weapons bans in the United States." And if it was OK for you to boldly, unilaterally move/rename the original title of an article under a category that is currently under discretionary sanctions, then it had better be OK for me to boldy move this one. Further, if it's OK for you to accuse me of ownership - without evidence - then it's surely OK for me to say that YOU are displaying OWNERSHIP behavior... and I can give at least seven diffs right now as evidence. But I really would rather not play that game, so... How about it? Will you, with God and Drmies and the whole WP gun-control related universe watching right now, prove me wrong and agree to rename this article "Assault weapons bans in the United States" as a compromise? Considering that we've both been less-than-stellar editors on this, I think that's a pretty good solution to this problem. Lightbreather (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I have notified every editor who participated - pro or con - in the RfC and RM above, plus editors who participated in this discussion [38] - pro or con (except for Gaijin42) - to participate here. I will be away from my desk for about a week, but I will be checking in as best I'm able with my phone. Lightbreather (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• How about Anti-assault weapon legislation in the United States ? — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 10:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• BHL, I chose your first suggestion because it's a perfect compromise. It's natural. It's pluralized (which several editors mentioned a need for) and it's specific to the U.S. (which several editors mentioned). Your first impulse was a good one. A PREPONDERANCE of WP:V, WP:RS refer to these laws in general as assault weapons bans, even when referring to proposals. They have now FOR 25 YEARS. If we want to pluralize it and have it only about U.S. laws, Assault weapons bans in the United States meets all five of the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA:

• Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
• Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.
• Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
• Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
• Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.

This convoluted exercise in titling this article anything else is WP:POVNAMING to satisfy editors who loathe the words "assault weapons ban" so much that they want to name articles about them using their preferred language.... contrary to policy. It's as simple as that. This should NOT be decided by a vote count, but by the strength of the arguments. "Assault weapons ban" or "Assault weapons bans in the United States" is recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent. Lightbreather (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems like the issue is "legislation" vs. "ban". I like legislation because it is a bit more neutral, although I see from the article there doesn't seem to be any legislation mentioned besides bans. Aren't there registration laws and stuff like that, from the Gun Control Acts of 1968 and 1986? That stuff should be in there. So then I would support having TWO articles, one covering all aspects of laws relating to assault weapons, and then one just on bans. Useitorloseit (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article title "Assault Weapon Legislation" is correct:

• The word "ban" is not universally understood, its meaning is contextually based, and is somewhat vague. For example, in California pet stores are legally "banned" from selling live turtles that are under 4 inches in size, but its not illegal to possess one like it is with an unregistered "assault weapon". Even when alcohol was "banned" in the U.S. by the 8th Amendment, it's referred to as Prohibition, not "The Banning".
• "Legislation" in the title indicates fairly succinctly that the article is about "laws concerning assault weapons" regardless of which state/city, how they are defined, or whether the bill was successful in becoming a law.
• I consider myself fairly knowledgeable on the subject and even I am confused by the use of the term "ban" here on WP with regard to this subject. More often than not when I see it used I ask how or why, but fail to find that information.
• It's been mentioned that the preponderance of Google and search engine results use the phrase "assault weapons ban" which is a fundamentally flawed stance. The list resulting from a Google search is not WP:RS. Isn't the purpose of the article to explain and/or clarify the term, not just repeat it ad nauseam?
• Furthermore, the phrase "Assault Weapons Legislation" is Neutral and non-POV.

Policy states:

• WP:TITLE The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support Compromise Sorry I am joining the party a little late here, I took a long weekend off. I personally think the compromise is reasonable. As pointed out previously, Wikipedia didn't create the term "ban", and it seems to me it is the phrase that is far and away the most commonly used. I personally fail to see how using it creates a soapbox. The only realistic argument I have heard against the phrase in any of these discussions is that some see it as a type of Search Engine Optimization... and I am not willing to assume anyone is that up to those type of shenanigans. Thenub314 (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• There are no vacations here. If you wish your !vote to count for something, you'll have to spend 8 hours patrolling Recent Changes first. At ease! Drmies (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hey Nub, I hope you got your grades in on time, the time off was likely well deserved. To your point about "Search Engine Optimization" and edit like this starts to make a case for it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Ugh... and this one too...!

• Scal, if you're really concerned about the use of the word "ban" in any one WP article, you might want to check out Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which uses the word in the body of the text almost 90 times. Is it possible that article has been search-engine optimized, maybe? In fact, I think I'm going to go over there and replace about half of those uses with "prohibit." Lightbreather (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

LB, if you have suddenly discovered the existence of a Thesaurus, its a change that I would welcome. I see that you have been self reverting some of your many uses of "ban", which is IMO a step in the right direction as well. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod. That doesn't strike me as SEO. But help me understand what is the difficulty with the word ban versus, prohibited, outlawed etc. ? Thenub314 (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Scroll back up a few lines, its in the bullet points. The main point is that the word "ban" is vague and its meaning varies from application to application. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Basic details of shootings that were impetus of AWB 1994 and AWB 2013, and state bans

I have asked for a third opinion. Lightbreather (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

One editor keeps removing the basic details of the shootings - basically, the numbers killed and injured - that were the impetus for AWB 1994, AWB 2013, and state bans. These details go back to the first day of the article.[39] They are in the main articles, Federal Assault Weapons Ban and Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. They are given in numerous WP:V, WP:RS on the topic (as the sources for this article and those show).

This editor claims these details are 1. "hyperbole,"[40] 2. sources were wrong,[41] that they were 3. "not relevant,"[42] and 4. "extraneous."[43]

1. "hyperbole" means "exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally." The numbers are cited in numerous verifiable, reliable sources. 2. There are numerous verifiable, reliable sources sources that can be ADDED if the ones provided aren't satisfactory. 3. "relevant" means "closely connected or appropriate to the matter at hand." Numerous verifiable, reliable sources say that these details are relevant. 4. "extraneous" means "irrelevant or unrelated to the subject being dealt with." This is a repeat of his argument 3.

Numerous WP:V, WP:RS sources say that these details are relevant to the history of AWB 1994, AWB 2013, and state bans. Barring a preponderance of verifiable, reliable sources that say they are irrelevant to the history of these bans, they belong in the article. Therefore, I am asking him to please stop removing these basic facts that help readers to understand the history of these bans - they help to answer why they were proposed in the first place. Lightbreather (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not a newspaper or a tabloid or any other media outlet that subscribes to the guideline "if its bleeds, it leads". In an article about various legislation, body counts are not key or vital detail regardless of how basic or sourced the information is. The use of details such as how many children were shot or killed is not needed and is obviously being used to illicit a proscribed response. Its akin to the tactics used by pro gun control groups and as such does not belong in this article. Furthermore, this level of detail is available in each article for the respective incidents, its still on Wikipedia.

I do not understand why murdered children body counts need to be in this article if there is not an agenda or salacious purpose behind that content. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have asked for a third opinion. Lightbreather (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, for the record, I privately asked Scal to strike that last comment of his, that ends with "an agenda or salacious purpose behind the content." He deleted the request, calling it "harassing."[44] Lightbreather (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits here, and have no connections with either of you. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

The average piece of legislation passed by the US Congress does not have its own article on Wikipedia. The notability of these laws are established by the sources they are mentioned in, chiefly the newspaper articles. The sources that I have read state fairly explicitly that the laws were linked to the shootings, and did not exist in a vacuum. Moreover, all the sources presented here mention the body count, as a way of showing that the shootings were significant. Therefore, I would say that given the sources currently being used to establish notability, body counts do need to be mentioned. That said, it is perhaps appropriate to condense the language there a little bit, while still mentioning the toll. I hope this helps. I will watchlist this page, to see where this goes, and clarify what I said, if needed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with Vanamonde93. Mentioning the shootings sets the relevant context for understanding why such laws were passed or proposed. Thenub314 (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough... Vanamonde93 would you provide an example of what you have in mind to "condense the language there a little bit"? Thank you in advance, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 15:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

For a "History" section, it's pretty condensed as it is. I did condense one part yesterday,[45] though it wasn't to do with the body counts, but with how the cited source described the Stockton shooter's weapon. A comment on the body counts: the fact that the sources separated the children from the adults is significant. I think lumping together the numbers - like "x dead and y injured" - would negate that significance. Lightbreather (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

How about "On [insert day], a gunman with a semi-automatic rifle fatally shot five children and wounded 29 others and a teacher." Or something along those lines? We can't condense it very much, but all details about the number of victims can certainly be fit into one sentence. I have less experience here than you, you people can probably come up with a better version. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Some changes

I have made a number of changes that (I hope) will reflect a neutral POV of the article. I strive very hard to put my politics aside when it comes to editing Wikipedia, and I hope I have done this. I am pro-control, and I hope that I have managed to reach out to the gun-toters who are on the other side of this issue. Lets discuss the changes here, and I will abide with whatever the consensus happens to turn out to be. be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 08:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sue Rangell: Please restore the "County and municipal bans" section that you removed with this edit. Local assault weapons legislation is very relevant to this subject, and affects many people in the United States. And certainly that material was adequately sourced. Thank you. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

After looking at this a little more, I'm inclined to revert the entire edit. You've removed a lot of detailed material, making the article much shorter, without first discussing it here on the talk page. For example the article had detailed descriptions of how each different state defines assault weapons. I don't see how removing all that makes this a better article. So, I would invite you to explain your thinking in more detail. I'd request that as part of that you address how removing all the material about local assault weapons legislation improves an article about assault weapons legislation in the United States, I still really don't get that part. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

To get the ball rolling, I've gone ahead and put back the section about local laws, without any changes other than the section header. Also, this article is about assault weapons legislation in the United States, so there's no need to put everything under a United States section header. I removed that and moved everything up one level, so to speak. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually the changes look pretty good. Local laws are important, and I should have left at least some of them in. Thank you! --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. But, I'm still concerned that a lot of relevant details have been removed, such as the somewhat different definitions of "assault weapon" used by each state. I would also encourage other editors to give their opinions on this. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The different definitions of what makes a so-called assault weapon varies by state. For example, California outlawed AR-15s by certain names, whereas New York allowed those very named rifles and banned rifles that would be made in the future. In many instances they are talking about semiautomatic rifles, yet some states include handguns, revolvers and even pump-action and lever-action shotguns and rifles. The article may get a bit unweildy if you open that door.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

A lot of that info was already in the article, before Sue Rangell's recent edit. Take a look, here. That's what the discussion's about -- how much of that detail should be put back in, and also what the best way to organize it would be. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That is precisely why I made the edits. The article WAS unweildy. Still local laws are important too, and I'm hoping that we could find some sort of balance. Each state has it's own gun laws. The article would collapse under it's own weight if we included everything. It was already too bloated. Perhaps we could just trim it down to a few of the more notable or controversial laws? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Some restorations

I have restored some of the almost 40K bytes of sourced material - including a table - that Sue Rangell deleted from the article on 17 July 2014 with the edit summary "Various fixes and restorations."[46] Lightbreather (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

A Majority of Americans are AGAINST an "Assault Weapons" Ban Not For It / Semi-automatic Weapons are NOT Assault Weapons

Um...The webpage in the citation listed for the passage of text that states that the majority of Americans are in favor of the proposed "assault weapons" ban is number one, outdated, and number two, complete horse shit. Here is a more recent opinion poll taken that shows that the majority of Americans are OPPOSED to the so called "assault weapons" ban: http://www.gallup.com/poll/196658/support-assault-weapons-ban-record-low.aspx

This information needs to be changed. I'm not too savvy with this page editing stuff, or I'd do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.78.52 (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

An editor named Mikalra fixed it.[47] Felsic2 (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Justin M --This discussion page is confusing and I didn't know where to put this. The article title is incredibly misleading. It talks about an assault weapons ban, but gives a bunch of examples of sporting rifle incidents. If it does not have selective-fire, it is not an assault rifle. Semi-automatic weapons are not assault rifles, unless they can be easily changed to automatic with use of a switch. - 135.53.222.84 July 17, 2019 8:05 PM EST

Regarding Efficacy Section

This section largely concerns high capacity magazines legislation, not assault weapons legislation. Source 50 only addresses handgun legislation efficacy and phrase "assault weapon" cannot be found in source. The rest of the paragraph and sources 51 and 52 similarly do not concern assault weapons.

Should this section be moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-capacity_magazine_ban? Vaclau (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Marked {{fv}}. Vaclau (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Due to an unsourced recent edit I've removed the section completely. 69.61.173.128 (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

New assault weapons ban

Should we talk and possibly add about the most recent one that was passed in the House? DJRaph (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Map of bans does not show Washington

Can someone update it? Wa is the 10th state to enact an AWB: [48] {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 23:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)