This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Assault weapons legislation in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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)
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)
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)
I propose that:
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)
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).
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)
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
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. |
"... [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]
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 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)
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)
Luth's quest to introduce the hunting market to the AR platform was recognized in January 2009 when he was named to the Outdoor Life's OL-25, and later chosen by online voters as the OL-25 "Reader's Choice" recipient. The recent campaign by the NSSF to educate hunters everywhere about the "modern sporting rifle" can be directly attributed to Luth's push to make AR rifles acceptable firearms in the field, the woods and on the range.
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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:
Policy states:
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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
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 /info/en/?search=High-capacity_magazine_ban? Vaclau ( talk) 23:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
Can someone update it? Wa is the 10th state to enact an AWB: [48] {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 23:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Assault weapons legislation in the United States article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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)
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)
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)
I propose that:
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)
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).
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)
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
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. |
"... [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]
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 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)
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)
Luth's quest to introduce the hunting market to the AR platform was recognized in January 2009 when he was named to the Outdoor Life's OL-25, and later chosen by online voters as the OL-25 "Reader's Choice" recipient. The recent campaign by the NSSF to educate hunters everywhere about the "modern sporting rifle" can be directly attributed to Luth's push to make AR rifles acceptable firearms in the field, the woods and on the range.
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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:
Policy states:
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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
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 /info/en/?search=High-capacity_magazine_ban? Vaclau ( talk) 23:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
Can someone update it? Wa is the 10th state to enact an AWB: [48] {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 23:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)