| Revision as of 02:12, 10 August 2013 editLightbreather (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,672 edits →the word "cosmetic" is false and biased.← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:17, 10 August 2013 edit undoLightbreather (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,672 edits /* doh! moving section!Next edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| Also does it make soldiers criminal in using these types of weapons? It may vary depending on the mission but why should we let soldiers armed with grenade launchers and drones and nuclear bombs? Why do they need M-16 rifles if it's just being used for unlawful purposes? Reality check, it's not a bill of needs it's a ]. Our founding fathers wanted citizens to have arms that are nearly and evenly matched with the standing military and that's a fact.-] (]) 21:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC) | Also does it make soldiers criminal in using these types of weapons? It may vary depending on the mission but why should we let soldiers armed with grenade launchers and drones and nuclear bombs? Why do they need M-16 rifles if it's just being used for unlawful purposes? Reality check, it's not a bill of needs it's a ]. Our founding fathers wanted citizens to have arms that are nearly and evenly matched with the standing military and that's a fact.-] (]) 21:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ==RfC: Is inclusion of the word "cosmetic" in the Criteria section appropriate?== | |||
| {{rfc|pol|rfcid=C498DB0}} | |||
| Should the "Criteria of an assault weapon" section contain the words "cosmetic"? ] (]) 01:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Survey - For threaded discussion, see below === | |||
| *'''Oppose''', the word "cosmetic" is inappropriate in the Criteria section. ] (]) 01:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===Threaded discussion=== | |||
| *Another user says the limited discussion from earlier in 2013 (top of this talk), plus two citations in the article, are sufficient to prove that the word "cosmetic" is appropriate in the "Criteria of an assault weapon" section of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban page. I agree the word may be appropriate to use in other sections of the page, but not the Criteria section. The word "cosmetic" appeared ''nowhere'' in the AWB, and there is ''not'' a consensus among concerned parties about the ''essential'' qualities of these features. In 2004, upon expiration of the AWB, by calling the features "cosmetic," but the NRA-ILA is hardly a neutral party in the discussion. At the same time, that said, in part, "Soon after its passage in 1994, the gun industry made a mockery of the federal assault weapons ban, manufacturing 'post-ban' assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts." Again, the VPC is not a neutral party, and, at any rate, its statement does not say that the banned features were cosmetic. ] (]) 01:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : | |||
| == "Cosmetic" is not false and biased. It is factually accurate. == | == "Cosmetic" is not false and biased. It is factually accurate. == | ||
Revision as of 02:17, 10 August 2013
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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. |
 Archives | ||||||||||
Index
|
||||||||||
the word "cosmetic" is false and biased.
- Read this older discussion, if you wish, or jump directly to the newer discussion below to participate in the current discussion. Lightbreather (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The features listed in the assault weapons ban were not solely cosmetic. All of them served utilitarian functions which make weapons more dangerous, or better suited to unlawful purposes.
1) Folding and telescopic stocks make weapons better suited to unlawful purposes by making them more concealable. 2) Pistol grips in conjunction with folding or telescopic stocks, or in place of stocks altogether, make it easier to use more concealable weapons either with folding or telescopic stocks, or in place of stocks altogether. 3) Bayonet mounts make weapons more dangerous by increasing their utility as melee weapons. 4) Flash suppressors make weapons better suited to unlawful purposes by making it easier to stay hidden when firing them. 5) Grenade launchers make weapons more dangerous by enabling the accurate use of small explosive devices at long range.
The word "cosmetic" is inaccurate, and worse, biased in this context. It implies that Congress cynically targeted features for show, rather than function. That may be. But Misplaced Pages should not take that editorial position.
- The best way to resolve this dispute is with a "he said/she said" approach. A sentence should include the reason Congress gave for targeting denominated features. And another sentence should include to gun advocate's argument that features like grenade launchers are purely cosmetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.145.68 (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Cosmetic is the term from the cited reference. Do you have a reference that has a different view? Yaf (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- For once I agree with Yaf. Folks from both "sides" have called it that. North8000 (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that its false and biased but I will agree that it is unnessesary. Simply saying features is enough without the adjective cosmetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.242.165.106 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Yaf and North8000. The reference specifically says "cosmetic". As a point of fact, the basic functionality of a semi-automatic rifle is the same with or without pistol grips, flash hider, etc. They look different, they look "military". That difference is cosmetic. There is no bias in the article continuing to recognize that. Do you have any RS that suggests otherwise? Capitalismojo (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
There's a similar discussion taking place at Talk:Assault weapon#Cosmetic features. — Mudwater 03:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Obviously the user who put this section on here was none other than the wicked witch herself. They are cosmetic and prove to have no effect on the firearms "power". And criminals do not exclusively use "assault weapons" because We The People use them as well against criminals. I have them but does that make me a criminal? I'm not shooting little kids or robbing banks so this topic is invalid and unprofessional by a liberal commie who just want to rule the world with his/her own army of mongols against a disarmed populace.-Boba fett 32 (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Also does it make soldiers criminal in using these types of weapons? It may vary depending on the mission but why should we let soldiers armed with grenade launchers and drones and nuclear bombs? Why do they need M-16 rifles if it's just being used for unlawful purposes? Reality check, it's not a bill of needs it's a Bill Of Rights. Our founding fathers wanted citizens to have arms that are nearly and evenly matched with the standing military and that's a fact.-Boba fett 32 (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
"Cosmetic" is not false and biased. It is factually accurate.
The first line in the rebuttal is assuming that the utilitarian functions of the described items are for illicit purposes. This is patently incorrect.
- "1) Folding and telescopic stocks make weapons better suited to unlawful purposes by making them more concealable."
Source?
Incorrect. The purpose is to allow adjustments to comfortably fit the user as most stocks are one fixed size. Is every shooter the same build? No. If the sole purpose of these type of stocks was "making them more concealable", then why do they make telescopic stocks for pistols? They at least double the size of a pistol that had one. These types of stocks are commonplace among sport/competition shooters for the same reason. The previous argument doesn't even make sense.
- "2) Pistol grips in conjunction with folding or telescopic stocks, or in place of stocks altogether, make it easier to use more concealable weapons either with folding or telescopic stocks, or in place of stocks altogether."
Source?
Again, couldn't be farther from the truth. The purpose of the pistol grip is differing ergonomics. A pistol grip in conjunction with a fold/telescopic stock does not make it more concealable. It makes the firearm larger as the pistol grip extrudes from the lower of the rifle (bigger, less concealable), whereas normal (non-telescopic/folding stocks) are more in parallel with the body of the rifle, and smaller.
- "3) Bayonet mounts make weapons more dangerous by increasing their utility as melee weapons."
Source?
A bayonet mount does not increase its utility as a melee weapon. A bayonet does, but a mount does not. Have you ever heard of a melee spree from a mounted bayonet on an AR-15 anyways?
- "4) Flash suppressors make weapons better suited to unlawful purposes by making it easier to stay hidden when firing them."
Source?
Apparently, everything on a rifle is made for unlawful purposes. If such was the case, military and police must have a lot of unlawful activities going on as they utilize a lot of these. Is a flash suppressor necessary? No. Is a car that can go over 100mph? No. Luxury item, hardly something to actually worry about. If you have ever fired a rifle with a flash suppressor, you would know that it does not eradicate a flash. Also, most shootings are not a sniper in the woods. Someone who is skilled enough to shoot that far that a flash suppressor would be effective, the flash would not be visible anyways.
- "5) Grenade launchers make weapons more dangerous by enabling the accurate use of small explosive devices at long range."
True.
However, this is biased. These are not available to the civilian populace to begin with, thus redundant to put in the bill in the first place. This is merely used to help distract a reader by creating fear in a non-existent problem.
It is not editorial, and it is in fact, true. The fact that they targeted these specific features, proves its aim at cosmetics. If you want to get really picky, ergonomics would be a better word to use, over cosmetics.
Lostincynicism (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Removal of dispute headers on the article page.
The two dispute headers on the article page have been in place for a significant period of time in relation to the below above listed complaint. This complaint has been discussed at length in this talk page. The general public sees the dispute headers on the article and calls into question the veracity of the information provided in the article because of those headers. This talk page has shown the substantive issue of whether the term "cosmetic" has been resolved. Whether or not the term is biased, the use of the term is indeed one of historical fact and documented use. The term "cosmetic" was not one created by wiki users or by any statistically insignificant minority, but the majority of all parties involved. Therefore it does a disservice to the public at large to leave the dispute headers in place on the article page, as there is indeed no need to keep them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.4.205 (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- Unassessed Firearms articles
- Unknown-importance Firearms articles
- WikiProject Firearms articles
- B-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- Old requests for peer review