Misplaced Pages

Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia 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 01:00, 12 August 2013 editLightbreather (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,672 edits →Threaded discussion← Previous edit Revision as of 01:04, 12 August 2013 edit undoLightbreather (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,672 edits →Threaded discussionNext edit →
Line 157: Line 157:
:::"Are you saying it's reliable to support your claim, but not mine?". It is supportive of the use of the word cosmetic, and because the organization is at the polar extreme opposite of the NRA, who also describe the features as cosmetic, it is supportive that ''both'' sides of the discussion agree that the features are cosmetic - which tends to neutralize suggestions that only a specific bias supports the claim. ] (]) 02:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC) :::"Are you saying it's reliable to support your claim, but not mine?". It is supportive of the use of the word cosmetic, and because the organization is at the polar extreme opposite of the NRA, who also describe the features as cosmetic, it is supportive that ''both'' sides of the discussion agree that the features are cosmetic - which tends to neutralize suggestions that only a specific bias supports the claim. ] (]) 02:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
:You acknowledge however, that some of the features are "cosmetic". As well, as carefully noted in the "criteria" section, it is the presence or absence of '''two or more''' of the listed features that the law used as the definition of a bannable weapon. Manufacturers complied with the law, and removed specific cosmetic features in order to come within compliance of the law. Absent cosmetic features being part of the definition, manufacturers could not come within compliance. :You acknowledge however, that some of the features are "cosmetic". As well, as carefully noted in the "criteria" section, it is the presence or absence of '''two or more''' of the listed features that the law used as the definition of a bannable weapon. Manufacturers complied with the law, and removed specific cosmetic features in order to come within compliance of the law. Absent cosmetic features being part of the definition, manufacturers could not come within compliance.
::I acknowledge that some sources describe some features as "cosmetic," but that is not the same as saying that I believe they are cosmetic.] (]) 01:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

:I'm sorry, but it seems like you're saying that you don't like the cited sources, which corroborate the already qualified wording in the section, so if you don't get your way even after a vote, you'll "escalate" the issue. Is that really necessary? I'm fine with the existing Rfc sitting for a week or so for more voices to chime in - although, again - your analyses argue that it is ''unqualified'' use of the term that is inappropriate, not the mere existence of the word. I would suggest you create an Rfc that goes ''specifically'' to your concerns. No information you have tendered thus far argues that the word alone requires removal, per the sources. :I'm sorry, but it seems like you're saying that you don't like the cited sources, which corroborate the already qualified wording in the section, so if you don't get your way even after a vote, you'll "escalate" the issue. Is that really necessary? I'm fine with the existing Rfc sitting for a week or so for more voices to chime in - although, again - your analyses argue that it is ''unqualified'' use of the term that is inappropriate, not the mere existence of the word. I would suggest you create an Rfc that goes ''specifically'' to your concerns. No information you have tendered thus far argues that the word alone requires removal, per the sources.
:Also, you have mischaracterized the vote, it's worth noting. There are ''five'' votes (at the time of this writing), five different editors who support use of the word. one neutral, one opposed. Le's either get an Rfc that is probative to your specific concerns, or wait a week or so for more votes to come in. ] (]) 00:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC) :Also, you have mischaracterized the vote, it's worth noting. There are ''five'' votes (at the time of this writing), five different editors who support use of the word. one neutral, one opposed. Le's either get an Rfc that is probative to your specific concerns, or wait a week or so for more votes to come in. ] (]) 00:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:04, 12 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 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.
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.
Archiving icon
Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10

the word "cosmetic" is false and biased.

Read this older discussion, if you wish, or jump directly to the newer discussion ("Is inclusion of the word 'cosmetic' in the Criteria section appropriate?") below to participate. 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.

Whomever wrote that screed obviously knows very little about firearms.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
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)

RfC: Is inclusion of the word "cosmetic" in the Criteria section appropriate?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the "Criteria of an assault weapon" section contain the words "cosmetic"? Lightbreather (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Survey - For threaded discussion, see below

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, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action responded by calling the features "cosmetic," but the NRA-ILA is hardly a neutral party in the discussion. At the same time, the Violence Policy Center issued a press release 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. Lightbreather (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The fact that manufacturers were able to build guns *in compliance with the law* by altering cosmetic features of the guns, means that cosmetic features were what were banned. Both pro-gun-rights and pro-gun-control organizations acknowledged that the ban was on cosmetic features, not functional features. If that isn't consensus on the distinction, I don't know what is. Anastrophe (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Reliable sources refer to "cosmetic". This discussion seems to be beating a dead horse. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Capitalismojo, this is not beating a dead horse. Pushing to restore the word "cosmetic" to the Criteria section of the AWB talk was jumping the gun. Let's look at your sources, one at a time. #1 The Salon.com article by Alex Seitz-Wald titled "Don't mourn the assault weapon's ban impending demise." The word "cosmetic" appears twice on that article page. First, in the subtitle, which Seitz-Wald very likely did not write, and in any case was poor editing, as "cosmetic" there modifies "assault weapons ban" in the title. Our Misplaced Pages article does not say that the ban was cosmetic. "Cosmetic" appears next (and last) in the sixth paragraph, where Alex Seitz-Wald says he "largely" agrees with the NRA. However "largely" is not the same as "completely." Seitz-Wald also quotes Chris Koper's 2004 report to the U.S. Department of Justice. The word "cosmetic" appears one time in that 114-page document: in the first paragraph of section 2.4.2. "Although the law bans 'copies or duplicates' of the named gun makes and models, federal authorities have emphasized exact copies. Relatively cosmetic changes, such as removing a flash hider or bayonet mount, are sufficient to transform a banned weapon into a legal substitute, and a number of manufacturers now produce modified, legal versions of some of the banned guns..." No English teacher or legal analyst would say that Koper meant that flash hiders or bayonet mounts are cosmetic features, but simply that removing them from the banned weapons was sufficient to make them legal. Legal and scholarly language is very precise. To say that Koper meant anything more than exactly what he said in that statement is a leap by the reader. Therefore, this citation does not prove that the features listed in the AWB were cosmetic features. Lightbreather (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is a nonsensical reading. Koper states: "Relatively cosmetic changes, such as removing a flash hider or bayonet mount, are sufficient to transform a banned weapon into a legal substitute,". In what sense other than the features being cosmetic, can you read his statement as *not* supportive that the features removed are cosmetic? If removing a cosmetic feature renders the weapon compliant with the law, then it means that the law banned cosmetic features, not functional features. If Koper had meant to suggest that *non* cosmetic - functional - changes rendered guns legal, he would have said so. Please, provide an english language example, framed the same as Kopel's, that contradicts this unstrained reading. Anastrophe (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe: First, does your statement, "I'm sorry, but this is a nonsensical reading," follow the community "Dispute resolution" guidelines? Second, Koper's statement - "Relatively cosmetic changes, such as removing a flash hider or bayonet mount, ..." - does not mean that flash hiders or bayonet mounts are cosmetic features, but that removing them is a relatively cosmetic change. From Merriam-Webster online: Relatively adverb - :to a relative degree or extent : somewhat. As I wrote earlier, legal and scholarly language is precise. If Koper had meant that flash hiders and bayonet mounts were only cosmetic features, he could have written: "The removal of cosmetic features, such as flash hiders or bayonet mounts, ..." Furthermore, if Koper had meant that removing flash hiders or bayonet mounts were completely cosmetic changes, he could have written that, too, instead of writing "relatively cosmetic changes". And at any rate, neither of these statements would have supported your reading that all or most assault weapons features are cosmetic. Lightbreather (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 'nonsensical reading' is within guidelines, thanks for asking. Are you aware of the policies regarding vandalizing an Editor's User page, as you did last night? Now to the substance: once again, you are arguing that it is the unqualified use of the term 'cosmetic' that you find inappropriate, not the use of the term 'cosmetic' full stop. I would strongly encourage you to start an Rfc specific to the concerns you have focused exclusively upon in this discussion. Otherwise, you are making a mockery of the discussion, because the discussion revolves around a question you did not request comment for. You likewise make a mockery of the discussion by overtly ignoring the substantive responses I've already made that address precisely what you just wrote above.Anastrophe (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
My post on your user page was meant to go in the talk section. I apologize. I thought you understood that when you deleted it and wrote "i'm going to assume it was a good faith mistake." As for the "nonsensical reading" remark, I disagree, but I'll leave it at that for now. I also disagree that I should start another RfC at this time, or that I'm making a mockery of the discussion. Also, I'm responding to your responses (and others' responses) as fast as I can. I'm sure I spent at least eight hours on this RfC yesterday - but I do have a family, and I also need to eat and sleep sometimes. I am sorry if I'm not moving fast enough for you. Lightbreather (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
When no apology was voluntarily tendered even after you began posting here today, I felt it was clear that it was no longer good faith. But whatever. "nonsensical reading" does not mean "you are nonsensical" or "you are being nonsensical". Wielding the policy bat that easily throws up red flags for me. I don't see how you can disagree with tendering a new Rfc that actually conforms to the concerns you are expressing here, rather than something quite different. You are arguing that the use of 'cosmetic' is unqualified in the criteria section, not that the word should be removed, as the Rfc queries. You are gathering votes on a question different from the issue you are arguing. However, since the use of 'cosmetic' is qualified in all places it's used in the article, I guess there really isn't much point to an Rfc for that either. We'll sit for a while and see if more votes show up for this question, but since reliable sources trump individual editor's desires for scrubbing information, I don't see much value in that either. User User:Mike Searson has provided sixteen sources describing some or all of the features as cosmetic. The preponderance of sources use the term. Anastrophe (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, you suggest that a reading of two sources that refer to cosmetic changes is not convincing, but you ignore the three other sources Capitalismojo provided. Perhaps it will simplify things if I add to the article the additional three sources that corroborate the plain english understanding of this matter. Anastrophe (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
If you will re-read my reply to Capitalismojo, you will see that I intend to address each citation separately (for clarity). Lightbreather (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Capitalismojo: Continuing to look at your sources, one at a time. #2 The reason.com article by Jacob Sullum titled "What's an Assault Weapon?" The statement Sullum makes is, "The distinguishing characteristics of 'assault weapons' are mainly cosmetic and have little or no functional significance in the context of mass shootings or ordinary gun crimes." Assuming you are claiming that "distinguishing characteristics" is absolutely interchageable with the term "features" (used in the law), "mainly" is not the same as "totally." Also, Sullum's bias is also obvious in his ironic usage of quotation marks around his every reference to assault weapons. This does not support that the features described in the AWB were cosmetic, but that Sullum believes they were. Lightbreather (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
That a reliable source believes something or has a bias does not invalidate that source in any manner whatsoever. Misplaced Pages's foundation is reliable sources, not editor's opinions as to what the reliable sources do or do not believe. That said, I would be agreeable to modifying the 'Criteria' section to say "largely cosmetic", rather than 'cosmetic' full stop. Worth noting that there's nothing ironic about using quotation marks around the politically created word "assault weapon", which definition of same cannot be nailed down in any empirical manner - which rather speaks to the very problems with the "assault weapons" that are at issue, to wit, that most - if not all - criteria that politicians have used in attempting to define their created term, have nothing to do with function, but rather appearance. Anastrophe (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe: Did you read the Misplaced Pages article on the ironic usage of quotation marks? Did you click through to the main article on scare quotes? The sections on negative use and style guidelines are relevant to a critique of Sullum's article, which uses scare quotes at least a dozen times when referring to assault weapons. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was the law of the land from 1994 to 2004, and the terms therein ("assault weapons" and "semiautomatic assault weapon") were legally defined, regardless of what you or Mr. Sullum think about them. Lightbreather (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I note with interest that you mention the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" in discussing the use of quotation marks. Did you actually mean the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, which is the formal legal name of the act? It seems you are okay with using vernacular language, rather than discoursing in strict and rigid legal language where appropriate. I appreciate your concerns about ironic use of quotes, but it has little relevance to this discussion pursuant to your Rfc. The author's use of ironic quotes does not invalidate it as a reliable source per WP policy. Anastrophe (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I am using "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" because that is the name of the article and that is the short form used by all concerned parties, whereas not all concerned parties see the AWB features as "cosmetic." Lightbreather (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Capitalismojo: Continuing to look at your sources, one at a time. #3 The Daily Beast article by Megan McArdle titled "Just Say No to Dumb Gun Laws." McArdle said that "long guns aren't used in the majority of gun crimes, and 'assault weapon' is a largely cosmetic rather than functional description." She did not say that assault weapons' features - some or all - are cosmetic. And again, modifiers like "largely," "mainly," "mostly," and "primarily" have meaning; you can't just ignore them. Lightbreather (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Capitalismojo: Continuing to look at your sources, one at a time. #4 Jordy Yager's piece for The Hill, "The problem with 'assault weapons'" - Yager wrote "Gun companies quickly realized they could stay within the law and continue to make rifles with high-capacity magazine clips if they steered away from the cosmetic features mentioned in the law." If you unpack this statement, it is clear that only some of the features of assault weapons might be called "cosmetic." (Though let's reiterate that the word "cosmetic" appears no-where in the law. It only started to be used in discussions about the law re: some features.) Lightbreather (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Capitalismojo: And finally, looking at your five sources, one at a time. #5 Michael A. Memoli's story in the Los Angeles Times, "Assault weapons ban to be dropped from Senate gun bill'" - Memoli wrote "Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who opposes stricter gun control, said he was not surprised Reid would drop the assault weapons ban, saying it was 'primarily focused on cosmetics, not on function.'" Again, modifiers like "primarily" cannot be ignored. Lightbreather (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

So to sum up, all of my refs use "cosmetic", all are reliable sourced, and you think the qualifying terms "mainly" or "primarily" are important and should be used in front of "cosmetic"? Capitalismojo (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

No, Capitalismojo. I am trying to discuss cited sources and focus on detailed content, per the Misplaced Pages community dispute-resolution guidelines. I would appreciate others doing the same. Lightbreather (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Going a little deeper, actually none of Lightbreather's analyses have any probative value to the actual Rfc above. The Rfc above asks, only, "Is inclusion of the word "cosmetic" in the Criteria section appropriate". It does not ask "Is inclusion of the word "cosmetic" without any qualifiers, appropriate to the criteria section", which is a wholley different question. A vote has been tendered on the actual Rfc question, and seems to support that use of the word "cosmetic" is appropriate. If user Lightbreather wishes to create a new Rfc specific to the user's apparent actual issue with the wording, I would not be opposed to modifying it to "largely cosmetic", even though a strict reading of the section in question shows that is it already qualified: " because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:" Anastrophe (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

To reiterate, my question is whether or not the qualifier "cosmetic" ought to be in the Criteria section of the article at all. It appears nowhere in the law, it is used inconsistently by the sources - some to modify "features," others to describe the law itself - and which specific features are deemed purely or primarily "cosmetic" are never fully and consistently identified. (As I've posted elsewhere in this talk, the VPC says that, 1. the ability to accept a high-capacity ammunition magazine; 2. a rear pistol or thumb-hole grip; and 3. a forward grip or barrel shroud, are "significant assault weapon functional design features," but that, 4. bayonet mounts; 5. grenade launchers; 6. silencers; and 7. flash suppressors, are "bells and whistles" - arguably, mostly cosmetic.)
Despite these inconsistencies, the term "cosmetic features" appears not once, not twice, but three times in the Criteria section. Lightbreather (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

To finalize my argument here for why the features in the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 should not be lumped together as "cosmetic"

There were 15 features included in the AWB 1994 definition of an assault weapon:

  1. Semi-automatic (rifle, pistol, or shotgun)
  2. Ability to accept detachable magazines (on a rifle)
  3. Folding or telescoping stock (on a rifle or shotgun)
  4. Pistol grip (on a rifle or shotgun)
  5. Bayonet mount (on a rifle)
  6. Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one (on a rifle)
  7. Grenade launcher (on a rifle)
  8. Detachable magazine (on a pistol)
  9. Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip (on a pistol)
  10. Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor (on a pistol)
  11. Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold (on a pistol)
  12. Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more (on a pistol)
  13. A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm (on a pistol)
  14. Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds (on a shotgun)
  15. Detachable magazine (on a shotgun).

Per the Violence Policy Center publication Bullet Hoses, the three "most significant assault weapon functional design features" (in addition to the primary one, being semi-automatic) are:

  • Ability to accept a high-capacity ammunition magazine
  • Rear pistol or thumb-hole grip
  • Forward grip or barrel shroud.

Also per the VPC, there are four "bells and whistles" features (or "cosmetic") that "have nothing to do with why assault weapons are so deadly." They are:

  • Bayonet mount
  • Grenade launcher
  • Silencer
  • Flash suppressor.

Therefore, of the 15 features included in AWB 1994, three were explicitly deemed significant, four were deemed cosmetic, and the rest are open to debate.

At this point, the vote is one for taking "cosmetic" out of the Criteria section, four for keeping it in, and one neutral. The discussion - over what, 24 hours? - has included three voices. That is hardly exhaustive. We are all in agreement that the features are features. I propose that the word "cosmetic" be removed from the "Criteria of an assault weapon" section, and added to a section about debate surrounding the ban. If that is not agreeable, I will escalate the issue to the next level. Lightbreather (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Removing 'cosmetic' is not agreeable. I've already demonstrated that your stated concerns about the wording are not specific to the Rfc you tendered. The use of the word is already qualified in the 'Criteria' section, which addresses your secondary concern expressed. Interestingly, you accept and reference at face value the VPC's interpretation (a biased source, in your own words) of what the features are that are in question.
Excuse me, Anastrophe where did I say that VPC is a biased source? Also, you claim that it's a reliable source for using the term "cosmetic features." Are you saying it's reliable to support your claim, but not mine? Lightbreather (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
"Again, the VPC is not a neutral party," you wrote earlier. Non-neutral = biased. It isn't necessarily pejorative, I should add. Anastrophe (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
"Are you saying it's reliable to support your claim, but not mine?". It is supportive of the use of the word cosmetic, and because the organization is at the polar extreme opposite of the NRA, who also describe the features as cosmetic, it is supportive that both sides of the discussion agree that the features are cosmetic - which tends to neutralize suggestions that only a specific bias supports the claim. Anastrophe (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
You acknowledge however, that some of the features are "cosmetic". As well, as carefully noted in the "criteria" section, it is the presence or absence of two or more of the listed features that the law used as the definition of a bannable weapon. Manufacturers complied with the law, and removed specific cosmetic features in order to come within compliance of the law. Absent cosmetic features being part of the definition, manufacturers could not come within compliance.
I acknowledge that some sources describe some features as "cosmetic," but that is not the same as saying that I believe they are cosmetic.Lightbreather (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but it seems like you're saying that you don't like the cited sources, which corroborate the already qualified wording in the section, so if you don't get your way even after a vote, you'll "escalate" the issue. Is that really necessary? I'm fine with the existing Rfc sitting for a week or so for more voices to chime in - although, again - your analyses argue that it is unqualified use of the term that is inappropriate, not the mere existence of the word. I would suggest you create an Rfc that goes specifically to your concerns. No information you have tendered thus far argues that the word alone requires removal, per the sources.
Also, you have mischaracterized the vote, it's worth noting. There are five votes (at the time of this writing), five different editors who support use of the word. one neutral, one opposed. Le's either get an Rfc that is probative to your specific concerns, or wait a week or so for more votes to come in. Anastrophe (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Please apologize for that, Anastrophe. Unless you're seeing something that I am not seeing
there were six votes as of just a few minutes ago. One (myself, Lightbreather) who supports the notion that the word "cosmetic" should not be in the Criteria section. Four (yourself, plus Mike, Jackmcbarn, and Capitalismojo) who oppose the notion, and one unidentified neutral party. That adds up to six. Lightbreather (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I misread, sorry. It would be nice if you were responsive to some of the many other issues I've brought up. Thus far, you've entirely ignored everything I've written. Are you interested in good faith discussion? Anastrophe (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
By my count, Anastrophe, I had replied to you at least three times as of when you posted you're remark that I had "entirely ignored everything written." Capitalismojo posted five sources all at once, and it took some time to read and reply to those. I've read everyone's comments up to this point - though not all the references - and I'm sorry, again, if my replies aren't fast enough for you. I will not be responding to Mike Searson, because it is obvious from his language that he's not interested in a civil discussion. I will have no discussions with anyone who talks like that. Lightbreather (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
That joke of a list that you posted is not a list of the 15 features of the so-called assault weapon ban. In fact it just shows how people pushing an agenda twist things to suit their argument. There are 5 features for rifles: a folding or telescoping stock,pistol grip,bayonet mount,flash suppressor,grenade launcher and any 2 of these features were required to transform a harmless rifle into a so-called assault weapon. So if these features are not cosmetic, it sounds as if someone would much rather be shot with a bull barrel AR15 without a bayonet lug, flash suppressor or collapsible stock than one with these features. Lets look at pistols: How does having a magazine outside the pistol grip make a pistol more effective or deadly? The Broomhandle Mauser was set up like that and has not been used since the First World War in any military capacity. It has not really caught on as a design trend, either. Or a threaded barrel to attach a barrel extender (whatever the fuck that is), flash suppressor, hand grip (although I will grant that anyone who attaches a hand grip via a threaded barrel should be sentenced to death for being too stupid to live) or a silencer. Most of those devices are completely useless on handguns with the exception of a silencer. A silencer is a safety device to protect the shooter's hearing much like a muffler on an automobile. Because for some reason it makes anti gunners need to wear big people diapers they are heavily regulated in the US and to possess one unlawfully guarantees 10 years in Federal Pound Me in the Ass prison...so who exactly were they targeting with this law by going after scary looking threaded barrels? Then there's the barrel shroud, or as carolyn mccarthy famously and incorrectly referred to it as "a shoulder thing that goes up"...In almost 3 decades of shooting and being in the firearms industry as well as the military...I have never seen a single person hold a handgun by a barrel shroud to fire a round...so would barrel shrouds that cannot be used as hand holds be ok? An unloaded weight of 50 oz? How does a heavier pistol make it more effective when the trend has been to make them lighter since the 1970s? A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm? So if it looks like a real machine gun we should ban it, even though it does not operate like one? How exactly are you defining cosmetic?
Let's move on to shotguns. A semiautomatic shotgun with two or more of the following: AFolding or telescoping stock....at the time there were 2 shotguns like that in the world, neither of which had ever been used in a crime to that point. A pistol grip...which is a rarity on semiauto shotguns and if it makes them so effective, why have so many been made without them? A fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds...Because a 6-round shotgun is more dangerous than a 5-round Fudd gun? Detachable magazine, not very effective on shotguns to begin with, but these are people who think Tec-9s with a 12-round magazine are more dangerous than a Ruger P89 with a 10 round magazine. I think she has no interest in good faith discussion.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's a few sources that say that the features were cosmetic:

  1. Rossi, Peter Henry (1 February 2008). Armed and Considered Dangerous. Transaction Publishers. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-202-36242-7. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
  2. Wilson, Harry L. (2007). Guns, Gun Control, and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-7425-5348-4. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
  3. Doherty, Brian (2008). Gun Control on Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle Over the Second Amendment. Cato Institute. p. 51. ISBN 978-1-933995-25-0. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
  4. Shally-Jensen, Michael (31 December 2010). Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Social Issues. ABC-CLIO. p. 509. ISBN 978-0-313-39205-4. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
  5. Patrick, Brian Anse (2010). Rise of the Anti-media: In-forming America's Concealed Weapon Carry Movement. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-7391-1886-3. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
  6. Beck, Glenn; Balfe, Kevin (22 September 2009). Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government. Threshold Editions. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-4391-6683-3. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
  7. United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary (1994). Assault weapons: a view from the front lines : hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, first session, on S. 639 ... and S. 653 ... August 3, 1993. U.S. G.P.O. pp. 185–186. ISBN 978-0-16-046100-2. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
  8. Carter, Gregg Lee (1 January 2006). Gun Control in the United States: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. pp. 75–76. ISBN 978-1-85109-760-9. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
  9. Krouse, William J. (2012). Gun Control Legislation. DIANE Publishing. pp. 43–44. ISBN 978-1-4379-4125-8. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
  10. Chu, Vivian S. (August 2010). Gun Trafficking and the Southwest Border. DIANE Publishing. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-4379-2914-0. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
  11. Allen, George (January 2006). George Allen: A Senator Speaks Out on Liberty, Opportunity, and Security. Xulon Press. pp. 104–105. ISBN 978-0-9769668-1-4. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
  12. Spitzer, Robert J. (4 May 2012). "Assault Weapons". In Gregg Lee Carter Ph.D. (ed.). Guns in American Society. ABC-CLIO. pp. 148–149. ISBN 978-0-313-38671-8. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
  13. Feldman, Richard (16 May 2011). Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist. John Wiley & Sons. p. 137. ISBN 978-1-118-13100-8. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
  14. Westwood, David (1 January 2005). Rifles: An Illustrated History of Their Impact. ABC-CLIO. p. 122. ISBN 978-1-85109-401-1. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
  15. Brown, Peter Harry; Abel, Daniel G. (15 June 2010). Outgunned: Up Against the NRA-- The First Complete Insider Account of the Battle Over Gun Control. Free Press. p. 92. ISBN 978-1-4516-0353-8. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
  16. Bunch, Will (31 August 2010). The Backlash: Right-Wing Radicals, High-Def Hucksters, and Paranoid Politics in the Age of Obama. HarperCollins. p. 100. ISBN 978-0-06-200875-6. Retrieved 10 August 2013.

That's from multiple points of view as well.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Categories: