Misplaced Pages

Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:59, 18 March 2014 editSue Rangell (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,776 edits →New Background Section: /← Previous edit Revision as of 20:13, 18 March 2014 edit undoGaijin42 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers20,866 edits →New Background Section: drop the stick sueNext edit →
Line 123: Line 123:


:::: I am very strongly opposed to having a second lede in the article. I have no problem with a bulleted list of facts. I think that could be helpful. But several paragraphs of POV "This is what the ban was all about" does nothing to improve the article, and in fact damages the article. (An article that has been stable for a while now) If a single editor is going to insist on what amounts to a second lede, then I will call for outside opinions so that a consensus can be formed. I am NOT going through six months of this again. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">] <span style="font-size: 16px;">]]</span></span> 19:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC) :::: I am very strongly opposed to having a second lede in the article. I have no problem with a bulleted list of facts. I think that could be helpful. But several paragraphs of POV "This is what the ban was all about" does nothing to improve the article, and in fact damages the article. (An article that has been stable for a while now) If a single editor is going to insist on what amounts to a second lede, then I will call for outside opinions so that a consensus can be formed. I am NOT going through six months of this again. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">] <span style="font-size: 16px;">]]</span></span> 19:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


Sue, drop the stick. Although I do have some issues with particular bits of LB's addition, in concept it is needed and appropriate. Having a section of the background is not a second lede. The lede summarizes the entire article. Saying some of the history that many reliable sources say led to the bill is an entirely appropriate part of the article. (Although as said, I do have reservations about particular bits that will need to be improved/balanced). While LB is taking the initiative to write a section, other editors have weighed in, discussing the content - you are the only one unilaterally removing content. this has become a clear pattern for you, and you need to stop. ] (]) 20:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:13, 18 March 2014

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about gun control or the Federal Assault Weapons ban. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about gun control or the Federal Assault Weapons ban at the Reference desk.
Federal Assault Weapons Ban received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Federal Assault Weapons Ban received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban 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
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 15 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconFirearms
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLaw Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archiving icon
Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


Photo

If there are no objections, I will add in the photo(s). --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Could I get a bit of help with this? I don't know how to get a still shot from a video. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Is one of these two photos not what you want for some reason?

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Gaijin. I got a little lost. :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Use of the word "defunct"

The word "Defunct" is the proper term for law and political institutions that are no longer valid. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/defunct de·funct (d-fngkt) adj. Having ceased to exist or live: a defunct political organization. Adj. 1. defunct - no longer in force or use; inactive; "a defunct law"; "a defunct organization" inoperative - not working or taking effect; "an inoperative law" --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Article is officially stable now

I know I may be jinxing it by saying so, but the article has been stable for a while now. What do people think about having the page re-assessed by the various wiki-progects so that we can really iron out the wrinkles and who knows? Maybe go for a GA or something? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

New Background Section

I added a two-paragraph Background section to the article. This is the last version I came up with after working with User:StarryGrandma. Lightbreather (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

It contained a lot of heavy POV pushing and information that was duplicated elsewhere in the article. I've moved duplicate sections from those areas into the background section. I also stripped away all of the exciting sensational stuff that make gun control arguments so interesting and kept it to a simple boring statement of facts. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have moved several pieces from elsewhere in the article into the background section, and I am coming to realize that the entire article reads like a huge background section. I'm not sure what to do about this. I like the general idea of a background section, but if it's redundant there is no point in having it. Iwould rather like to find a way to keep it for whatever that is worth, but I am having trouble seeing how a "background section" is supposed to be different from the lede. Can we get some opinions? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


I think most of Sue's edits were and some of her comments are a bit heavy-handed. Here are the versions side-by-side. The middle version is Sue's version - and the current version. (If anyone knows how to make the columns uniform widths, please feel free.)

Versions side-by-side
First (w/ tweak by Gaijin) After re-write by Sue Compromise/tweak by LB
In January 1989, 34 children and a teacher were shot in Stockton, Calif., using a semi-automatic replica of an AK-47 assault rifle. Five children died. President George H.W. Bush banned the import of semiautomatic rifles in March 1989, and made the ban permanent in July. The assault weapons ban included a ban on high-capacity magazines tried to address public concern about mass shootings.

In November 1993, the ban passed the U.S. Senate, although its author, Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, and other advocates said that it was a weakened version of the original proposal. In January 1994, Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, said handguns and assault weapons should be banned. In May of that year, former presidents Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, wrote to the U.S. House of Representatives in support of banning "semi-automatic assault guns." They cited a 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll that found 77 percent of Americans supported a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of such weapons. Rep. Jack Brooks, D-TX, then chair of the House Judiciary Committee, tried to remove the ban from the crime bill but failed. The ban passed in September 1994.

The ban was part (Title XI, Subtitle A) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

The 1989, an early version of the ban is part of the legislation signed into law by President George H.W. Bush. Foreign weapons were banned from importation into the United States where the sporting purpose definition was defined. This did not affect domestic manufacture of the weapons covered under the 1989 import ban as defined under Section 922(r) of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

In November 1993, the ban passed the U.S. Senate.

In early 1994, Rep. Jack Brooks, D-TX, then chair of the House Judiciary Committee, tried to remove the ban from the crime bill but failed.

The ban passed in September 1994, expired in 2004, and is now defunct.

In January 1989, 34 children and a teacher were shot in Stockton, Calif., using a semi-automatic replica of an AK-47 assault rifle. Five children died. President George H.W. Bush banned the import of semiautomatic rifles in March 1989, and made the ban permanent in July. The assault weapons ban included a ban on high-capacity magazines and tried to address public concern about mass shootings.

In November 1993, the ban passed the U.S. Senate, although its author, Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, and other advocates said that it was a weakened version of the original proposal. In May 1994, former presidents Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, wrote to the U.S. House of Representatives in support of banning "semi-automatic assault guns." They cited a 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll that said 77 percent of Americans supported a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of such weapons. In July 1994, Rep. Jack Brooks, D-TX, then chair of the House Judiciary Committee, tried to remove the ban from the crime bill but failed.

The ban passed in September 1994 as part (Title XI, Subtitle A) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. The ban expired in 2004, and is now defunct.

  1. ^ "Senate restricts assault weapon imports, production". The Pittsburgh Press. Associated Press. May 23, 1990. p. A13.
  2. ^ Pazniokas, Mark (December 20, 1993). "One Gun's Journey Into A Crime". The Courant. Hartford, CT.
  3. ^ Roth, Jeffrey A.; Koper, Christopher S. (1997). "Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  4. ^ Mohr, Charles (March 15, 1989). "U.S. Bans Imports of Assault Rifles in Shift by Bush". The New York Times.
  5. ^ Rasky, Susan F. (July 8, 1989). "Import Ban on Assault Rifles Becomes Permanent". The New York Times.
  6. ^ Roth, Jeffrey A. (March 1999). "Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban" (PDF). National Institute of Justice Research in Brief (NCJ 173405). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ Bunting, Glenn F. (November 9, 1993). "Feinstein Faces Fight for Diluted Gun Bill". Los Angeles Times.
  8. Sugarmann, Josh (1994). "Reverse FIRE: The Brady Bill won't break the sick hold guns have on America. It's time for tougher measures". Mother Jones. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  9. ^ Eaton, William J. (May 5, 1994). "Ford, Carter, Reagan Push for Gun Ban". Los Angeles Times.
  10. ^ Seelye, Katharine Q. (July 28, 1994). "Assault Weapons Ban Allowed To Stay in Anti-crime Measure". The New York Times.
  11. ^ 103rd Congress (1994). "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. pp. 201–215.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  12. "Section 922(r) Parts Count". unknown. December 27, 2012.
  • The first source, the Pittsburgh Press article, says:
A campaign for curbs on assault weapons began in January 1989 after a deranged gunman with an AK-47 semiautomatic assault rifle opened fire on a Stockton, Calif., school yard at recess time, leaving five children dead and 30 wounded.
  • The second source, the Hartford (Conn.) Courant story, says:
The campaign to ban assault weapons began Jan. 17, 1989, after Patrick Purdy shot 34 children and a teacher in a Stockton, Calif., schoolyard, using a semiautomatic replica of an AK-47 assault rifle. Five children died.
  • The third source, Roth and Koper's "Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994" says:
Nonetheless, the involvement of assault weapons in a number of mass murder incidents such as those discussed above provided an important impetus to the movement to ban assault weapons. Commenting on Patrick Purdy's murder of five children with an AK-47 rifle in Stockton, California in 1989, one observer noted, "The crime was to raise renewed outcries against the availability of exotic military-style weapons in our society. This time police forces joined forces with those who have traditionally opposed the widespread ownership of guns" (Cox Newspapers 1989, p.i). Later that year, California became the first state in the nation to enact an assault weapons ban, and the federal government enacted a ban on the importation of several foreign military-style rifles.

This is NPOV and factual. The Stockton shooting was the catalyst for Bush's ban on the importation of foreign "assault weapons" and for the federal assault weapons ban.

I, too, look forward to some opinions. I hope to get some support for the third, compromise/tweaked version.

--Lightbreather (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Neither of those articles is very factual. Purdy used an SKS, not an AK-47:

"at least one gun that was banned by the old law may not be prohibited by the new law, because it lacks a pistol grip: the SKS semiautomatic rifle, which a man named Patrick Purdy used to kill five children and wound 29 other students and a teacher in a Stockton schoolyard in 1989." --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that discussing a tragedy that occurred 4-5 years before is off topic, POV and should stay out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, esteemed colleague, North, my friend. I hear you, and I understand your concern. If the article were to mention all traffic accidents in the years leading up to passage of AWB 1994, that would be off topic. If it were to provide the details of all the mass shootings with what would come to be called (wisely or not) "assault weapons," that would be undue weight. Even though many sources do give details about the other shootings, I am willing, for the sake of compromise and WP:UNDUE (which would therefore be, by some editors' reckoning, POV pushing) - I am willing to leave those other shootings out of this article. But one thing the sources do agree on, and cite even when they cite no others, is that the Stockton schoolyard shooting was the turning point in placing an AWB in the minds of the people, Congress, and even the sitting and a few former U.S. presidents. So presenting the basic facts about that shooting is relevant and not POV pushing. In fact, to not include at least that one, pivotal shooting would keep this article in the incomplete state that it is currently in.
This has been discussed before, in great detail, but also at a time when relations on this article were strained and stressed by other topics. On September 30, one editor asked:
this article is complete and NPOV, where is the background / introductory material? What are the origins of this law? Who wrote it? Why? Who supported it? What were the legal challenges that are alluded to?
A second editor replied that the lack of origin/historical information is probably not a POV issue (in this case), but certainly it can be a lack of completeness. If you know of good sourcing, that would be an excellent addition.
(I am not giving names because I'm trying to keep it on content, not people. Please, if you do go back to read those old discussions, try to read them without letting old feelings get in the way. That's what I try to do, though my heart pounds in my chest when I remember how alone I felt. Please, look for what was good and valid in what was discussed.)
In fact, an Origins of the ban section was added back then, but lost in a rollback on Oct. 1. On Oct. 3, a third editor wrote:
I'm in favor of restoring this section, but to the version after I did some minor NPOV editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&direction=next&oldid=575230574 I believe it could also stand to have the first graf elided as it is redundant. well-written, stating the basic history leading up to the ban, though it's hard to determine emphatically that the Stockton shooting was the proximate beginning of that history.
Since that time, I have found dozens more reliable verifiable sources that name the Stockton shooting as the main impetus for the AWB. I have let five months pass since then to allow feelings about this article cool down, but I would like to now resume making the article a little more complete by adding this Background section, which is brief, relevant and not POV. Lightbreather (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
And there are a lot of sources that say that the cause is a ongoing effort by committed anti-gun people, and that such events are merely things which they try to capitalize on / utilize. And so the background would be an analysis of who was pushing this and their backgrounds regarding this issue. I think that it would be better to have straightforward coverage of the topic rather than get into POV selections of the "reason" for it. And if we go to the latter, we should cover the various prominent POV's, not just one. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The version that third editor created (link above) has a brief (one sentence) paragraph that it (the AWB) was opposed by the NRA. I suggest that, after I add the section back, you add a sentence or two to that paragraph using the most neutral language you can with the best sources you can provide (as I've done)... I am inviting you to work with me on this, North. Lightbreather (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The current one doesn't look too bad from a POV standpoint, but I think that it scrambles some things by conflating the import ban with this law, and I think it also has technical errors wherever it uses "semi-automatic" as the only qualifier/adjective. North8000 (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought a "background" section would add to the article, and wanted to keep it. However North has made some very important points, and I am now of the opinion that such a section, in it's present form, amounts to POV pushing as the "cause" of the ban. This raises a fair number of problems which North has gone over, and I won't bother repeating. Also, the majority of the material is duplicated elsewhere anyway. I don't think a "background" section is beneficial to the article (which has been stable now for a while) if, POV issues aside, it is going to amount to little more than a second lede. As there is no consensus to add the section, I have removed it, pending such a consensus. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

North first said that "discussing a tragedy that occurred 4-5 years before is off topic," but I explained that it is not off topic, providing sources that prove it. I restored a tweaked version, based on a version that was supported five months ago, but never added because there was a lot of friction among editors at that time re: other issues. I also invited North to work with me to tweak any issues he might have, to which he replied that it doesn't look too bad, and offered a couple areas he'd like to address. Please let me and North go through the process - and work with us, if you wish. Please don't just delete the section. Lightbreather (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
North8000, since the import ban was already mentioned briefly as a sort of footnote to the banned weapons table in the Criteria section, I will move all mention of that ban to that section for now, to address your concern that some might confuse that ban with the AWB. Lightbreather (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I usually speak very directly, so "doesn't look too bad" was my exact thought. Besides the technical errors, the "not too bad" was because while taken literally it only noted that efforts intensified after the tragedy, rather than claiming that tragedy was a driving force. But I still a skeptical about grouping the AWB discussioons with a tragedy that happened 4 years before, thus implying cause and effect. But now, with the section being back it, it also has the significant technical errors. Just for future info when looking at such things, saying "semi-automatic" covers about 1/2 of all firearms. North8000 (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, North. I have edited the section for the two concerns you mentioned. I moved the Bush import ban to after the banned weapons table in the Criteria (next) section, and I further qualified the terms "semiautomatic assault weapon" and "large capacity ammunition feeding device" - leaving further elaboration also for the Criteria section. Lightbreather (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, North: I was pro-active and added three sources to back up the fact that reliable, verifiable sources agree that the Stockton schoolyard shooting was the turning point in the AWB debate of the early 1990's. I included quotes, too, though I did not add them to the article text. I hope that this will help to mitigate any future (let's hope not) debate among other editors re: its inclusion. I also bundled four of the sources, so as not to mar the article's readability. I based these edits on the example of the "cosmetic" debate, and how we ultimately handled the inclusion of those multiple, debated sources. (Don't want to start that again; just want to explain my action on this.) Lightbreather (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I am very strongly opposed to having a second lede in the article. I have no problem with a bulleted list of facts. I think that could be helpful. But several paragraphs of POV "This is what the ban was all about" does nothing to improve the article, and in fact damages the article. (An article that has been stable for a while now) If a single editor is going to insist on what amounts to a second lede, then I will call for outside opinions so that a consensus can be formed. I am NOT going through six months of this again. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


Sue, drop the stick. Although I do have some issues with particular bits of LB's addition, in concept it is needed and appropriate. Having a section of the background is not a second lede. The lede summarizes the entire article. Saying some of the history that many reliable sources say led to the bill is an entirely appropriate part of the article. (Although as said, I do have reservations about particular bits that will need to be improved/balanced). While LB is taking the initiative to write a section, other editors have weighed in, discussing the content - you are the only one unilaterally removing content. this has become a clear pattern for you, and you need to stop. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Difference between revisions Add topic