Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:13, 13 March 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Assault weapon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Firearms B‑class High‑importance

This 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Start‑class Low‑importance

This 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Propose improving lead per WP:LEADLENGTH and WP:BETTER, but first...

I would like to propose editing the article lead in line with the WP:LEADLENGTH guideline and WP:BETTER Lead section advice.

The entire text of our article is about 14,000 characters (lead through "Attributes in assault weapon definitions," excluding titles and footnote characters). The lead itself is six (6) paragraphs, but WP:LEADLENGTH suggests that articles under 15,000 characters should have leads of one or two paragraphs. The Lead section of WP:BETTER suggests no more than four. Is this possible on our article? I believe that if we work together it is.

However, we should probably first consider the advice in WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.

There is redundant material in the body that could be eliminated with a little work. For instance, the first paragraph of the Definitions and usage section has material that is repeated in the Relation to assault rifles section.

In addition, the last four paragraphs of the History of terminology section is also similar to the Relation to assault rifles section - which in turn is echoed in the Political and legislative issues section.

Can we agree on merging some of this material? I am open to suggestions on how we might re-order the sections, though if no-one wants to venture first, I will. Lightbreather (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'll go first. Here's the current TOC:

1 Definitions and usage

1.1 History of terminology

1.2 Expired U.S. Federal Assault Weapons Ban

1.3 Failed Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 bill

1.4 Differing state law definitions

1.5 Relation to assault rifles

2 Political and legislative issues

3 Attributes in assault weapon definitions

4 See also

5 Notes

6 External links

How about?

1 Political definitions

1.1 Relation to assault rifles

1.2 Political issues

2 Legal definitions

2.1 Expired U.S. Federal Assault Weapons Ban

2.2 Failed Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 bill

2.3 Differing state laws

2.4 Attributes in assault weapon definitions

3 See also

4 Notes

5 External links

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I have partially made the proposed edits by creating a "Legal definitions" section and moving the three law/legislation sub-sections under it. This leaves the political definitions and arguments first, and the somewhat easier to present information second. A) This was a law, and this is how that law defined the term. B) This was a proposed law that failed to pass, and this is how that proposed law defined the term. C) These are existing state laws, and this is how those laws define the term. Not to say they aren't without controversy, but most of the debate in this article seems to be centered around the "what IS an assault weapon?" and other questions asked in the lead paragraph. Lightbreather (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we clear this up? Grenade launcher, or grenade launcher mount?

This is not at the top of my list, but I do like to get the facts straight and it keeps popping up over and over. The language that I've seen in these laws, lists of features that could contribute to a firearm being classified an semiautomatic firearm, are similar to this example (from the expired AWB of 1994):

a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept

a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—

‘‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

‘‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath

the action of the weapon;

‘‘(iii) a bayonet mount;

‘‘(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed

to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

‘‘(v) a grenade launcher;

Our article currently says:

Attributes commonly used in assault weapon definitions, and their purposes:

Grenade Launcher Mount (mount only, grenade launcher itself not available to civilians).

If it's true that these laws are really talking about grenade launcher mounts and not grenade launchers, and if it's true that grenade launchers are not available to civilians, I'd like to provide a good source or two to cite. --Lightbreather (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Its a little complex, as there are multiple things that would probably be covered (difficult to know for sure, since nobody could now be prosecuted or defend against a particular device to find out for sure). There are (at least) 4 types of grenades launchers that can be used. One is a single use disposable kind where the launcher and actual grenade are one unit that is attached to the rifle, and once the grenade is fired, the launcher is disposed. In this case, the "mount" logic is accurate - being able to mount the disposable grenade wo. The third type of grenade launcher is one where you attach a tube directly to the end of the barrel, and actually shoot a special bullet at the grenade. The bullet then acts as a firing pin for the grenade. In some cases there is no special "launcher" and the grenade can be just shoved into the regular barrel of the rifle. To my knowledge one has never been used in a crime of any sort not perpetrated by the military itself. It was so pointless that in Feinsteins 2013 bill, she dropped this feature because it just added confusion without any real benefit, and due to the complexity of the grenade launchers available, saying what is or isn't covered may be problematic.uld probably count as a feature (even if one did not have access to the grenade). The second type is a reusable permanent tube attached to the bottom of the rifle that can be loaded with multiple grenades. In either case, the grenades or the launcher tube themselves are covered as explosive devices requiring the NFA Title 1, (like machine guns) and are covered by the NFA rather than the AWB. (Each grenade purchased requires a separate background check and $200 tax stamp too) It was sort of a dumb provision really, they are incredibly expensive, and already heavily licensed/taxed/registered/background checked. (this also doesn't address the 37mm vs 40mm issue - 40mm are the "real" grenades - these are "transferable" based on serial number, just like machine guns, and I doubt there are actually any left that are transferabble since they are one use items. 37mm are less restricted, but would be things like tear gas, smoke etc. They are still however subject to NFA) - TLDR : Grenade launchers are available to civilians, just like machine guns are, under the NFA - but if you go through the NFA you probably are attaching it to a machine gun, and therefore by definition are exempt from the AWB. Explosive grenades technically are also available, but there are probably none left that are transferable. non-explosive grenades are available, but each grenade is individually covered under the NFA. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Rifle_grenade this article covers quite a few of the types of grenades I discussed above. The main example of the reusable type(and possibly intended target of the AWB) is probably M203_grenade_launcher. that last article has some sources on the civilian ownership rules (I have not checked the sources for reliability or accuracy, I just see that they exist) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Grenade Launchers are already illegal of course. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

not quite illegal, but heavily restricted just as machine guns are.Gaijin42 (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes they are classified as "destructive military devices" (same as a hand grenade) and are already heavily regulated. The only civilians who have such access are military contractors and such. Please sign your posts... --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That is not true, any civilian can go through the NFA background check and tax process and buy such a device (they are prohibitively expensive however, with individual grenades costing thousands of dollars, on top of the tax issue). The explosive 40mm grendes are broken into transferable and non-transferable, with only the pre 86 items being transferable. As they are one time use items, the supply is obviously vanishingly small. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

So it's immensely difficult to own legally. North8000 (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42, or anybody, can you provide a reliable reference for grenade launchers being destructive devices under the NFA? I was under the impression that a grenade is an NFA destructive device but the launcher is not. I'm thinking especially about the "second type" you referred to in your post, "a reusable permanent tube attached to the bottom of the rifle that can be loaded with multiple grenades". I believe this is a picture of one. Skimming through the National Firearms Act and Destructive device articles seems to confirm my idea, they talk about grenades but not grenade launchers. I was therefore also under the impression that some assault weapon definitions are talking about these types of grenade launchers, and not just mounts for grenade launchers. — Mudwater 22:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The launcher would be covered under the destructive device point #2 as a non-sporting (non-shotgun) firearm with a bore greater than 1/2 inch. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I see. That makes sense. — Mudwater 22:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

37mm varieties (also known as flare guns) would not be destructive devices themselves (as they are not 1/2 inch bore), and because they are common as "signaling devices" but having any non flare type ammo for them would bring them back under NFA via constructive intent. (not an authoritative link, but I have no reason to think this is not the real text of an ATF. ruling) Some flare guns are mountable under an m4gery, so could possibly be something that would not be covered by the NFA but would be covered by the AWB, buts its a very small edge case (and having any non flare ammo would bring you right back to NFA in any case) http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/atfruling.95-3.txt Gaijin42 (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Fundamental to all of this, however, is that the 1994 FAWB explicitly banned (however ambiguously) "grenade launchers", as have other AWB's apparently. So "grenade launchers" (however ambiguously) constitute (a) feature(s) commonly used to define 'assault weapons'. Anastrophe (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That's what I think too. The sometimes banned feature is a grenade launcher -- whatever that means, and whether or not it's already very heavily restricted by the National Firearms Act. — Mudwater 01:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I was out most of the day getting and recovering from a root canal. I have read and digested what you've written, and it fits with what I thought, but didn't want to assume I was right. In a nutshell - for the nonspecialist - the banned feature is a grenade launcher, and it's not unavailable to civilians, but may be regulated under the NFA. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No. The banned feature is the MOUNT, not the launcher itself. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought we'd cleared this up, but it appears to be in contention again. Should we be telling our readers that it is a grenade launcher mount that is a listed feature in assault weapons definitions? If so, can someone please provide reliable, verifiable sources that make this clear? Lightbreather (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of the simplified, sourced paragraph

The paragraph on the left (the second paragraph in the lead) was reverted to the paragraph on the right with the edit summary "This is not just a simplification. It's a significant change and removal of explanatory material."

References

1. ^ Babay, Emily (December 22, 2012). "Confusion abounds: Just what is an 'assault weapon'?". Philadelphia Media Network. Retrieved December 28, 2012.
2. Mantel, Barbara (March 8, 2013). "Gun Control". CQ Researcher. 23 (10). CQ Press: 233–256. Retrieved December 3, 2013.

FIRST, except where "citation needed" is shown, the statements in the left-hand (revised) column are supported by sources. SECOND, Re: the first and third sentences of the old version: How is removing words and terms that do not appear in the sources ("ergonomic," "construction," and "a folding or collapsing stock") and merging what remains into one simple sentence not an improvement? THIRD, what "explanatory material" in the old, long second sentence improves in the lead? Specifically, what makes "cartridge," "chamber," "bolt handle," "lever," "sliding handgrip," and the details of how they work together so central to understanding "assault weapon" that they must be included in the lead? These mechanisms are described in detail in the Relation to assault rifles section, so how is the brief, cited "Semi-automatic firearms fire and reload only one bullet (round) per trigger pull" not a more suitable intro to that material? Lightbreather (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

COPIED (not removed) from "Removal of the word" section above, last two comments which have to do with this section:

Anastrophe, 20 DEC 2013: Back to the topic at hand, I'm not certain I agree with North8000's most recent reversion. I think LB's last revision is much closer to a reasonable compromise than we've had thus far. I agree that the excruciatingly detailed explanation of how semi-autos work as opposed to full auto is over the top for the lede, the simpler 'one round per trigger pull' vs 'multiple rounds per trigger pull' distinction still being made. We still need to mine the remaining text for a balance between brevity and clarity.

North8000, 21 DEC 2013: I think you're right. I think I reverted the wrong edit. I'll undo.

Thanks, guys. I restored the simplified paragraph, adding sources (already used in article) for second part of new third (old fourth) sentence. Lightbreather (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm still confused between the edits and the proposal. One clarifies the distinction between semi-automatic and (actual) automatic which is the biggest distinction between military and civilian firearms) and the other has wording which makes the distinction between semi-automatic and "manual" (common civilian non-semi-automatic firearms) (which is basically the distinction between the two halves of civilian owned firearms.) I plan to look at it and make sure or tweak accordingly. North8000 (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

What an automatic weapon does is described in detail in at least two places in the body: in the Definitions and usage section and in the Relation to assault rifles section. I REALLY think we should focus on some issues like that (redundancy, for one) in the body of the article, as I proposed on 10 DEC 2013. After that, we should fine-tune the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. In the meantime, I'm just checking lead content for citations and accuracy, that's all. Lightbreather (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm still confused, I think that the clarifying item that I'm describing is in the article. There is such immense confusion between the terms (abetted by even firearm experts sometimes abbreviating one as it's "opposite", and anti-firearm people consistently trying to mislead people into thinking that "semi-automatic" is some particularly powerful capability vs. describing 1/2 the firearms in America) that I think "avoiding duplication" is an immensely minor goal (if event that) when it conflicts with providing clarity in an area which is immensely common to confuse or misunderstand. North8000 (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I hear and I'm pretty sure I understand your concern, North. I'm spending this afternoon with my dad, and tomorrow with my husband and sons. Let's put our heads together after Christmas. I'm sure we can address your concerns and mine, too. Merry Christmas, if you celebrate it. Else, just have a nice couple of days. "Talk" with you in a few. Lightbreather (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

And a Merry Christmas to you too, Lightbreather, and everyone. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Order of laws/legal vs. politics/political material

Currently, the hatnote on the article begins: "This article is about the United States legal and political term." The first paragraph of the lead begins, "Assault weapon is a political and legal term...." And the second graf of the lead begins, "In discussions about firearms laws and politics in the U.S...."

A week ago or more, I changed the order of the elements of the first paragraph of the lead to "legal and political" to reflect the order of the elements in the hatnote and second graf. The change was reverted. (If I could find the DIFF link, I would... but I can't, sorry.) So instead, I am now going to reverse the order in the hatnote and second graf instead to "political and legal" (in the hatnote) and "politics and law" (in the 2nd graf) to complement the order of the lead graf. This way, the hatnote, the lead graf, and the second graf will all have the order laws/legal and politics/political. Lightbreather (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

As expected, when I checked, you did quite a bit more than that. Again we are seeing POV edits mixed in with gnome-type edits in these avalanches. Nobody has time to pick through and fix the bad while keeping the good. It is easier to revert the entire avalanche of undiscussed edits as I have done. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

A month ago, the hatnote on the article began: "This article is about the United States legal and political term." The first paragraph of the lead began, "Assault weapon is a political and legal term...." And the second graf of the lead began, "In discussions about firearms laws and politics in the U.S...."

On 4 DEC 2013, I changed the order of the elements of the first paragraph of the lead to "legal and political" to reflect the order of the elements in the hatnote and second graf, and I added WP:CONTEXTLINKs. The order change was reverted with edit summary "restore original order" (context links were kept).

So, on 23 DEC 2013, I reversed the order instead in the hatnote and second graf to "political and legal" and "politics and law" to complement the order of the lead graf. This way, the hatnote, the lead graf, and the second graf all had the order laws/legal politics/political and politics/political laws/legal. Another editor reverted it among an avalanche of reversions, with no DIFFs or details about why. I am reverting that one part, with this discussion here - again. Lightbreather (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe, Gaijin42, North8000: Would you please share your thoughts on this? Do you think that syncronizing the order of the elements in the hatnote, the lead paragraph, and the second paragraph is a BAD idea? I really don't care if it's legal/political (as I changed it to on Dec. 4) or political/legal (as I changed it to on Dec. 23), but I think it would benefit readers and editors, too. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(As an aside: All of my edits on Dec. 23 (three edits) and Dec. 24 (five edits) were done separately to make it easier for other active editors to undo parts they might object to, but the reversions were done in one big edit. How is that done?) Lightbreather (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Any objections to changing this compound, verbose sentence:

The exact definition of the term in this context varies among each of the various jurisdictions limiting or prohibiting assault weapon manufacture, importation, sale, or possession, and legislative attempts are often made to change the definitions.

To these two sentences?

Legally, the definition of the term varies among the jurisdictions limiting or prohibiting assault weapon manufacture, importation, sale, or possession. Legislative attempts are often made to change the definitions.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Any objections adding "Politically," to the beginning of this sentence?

It has been asserted that the term is a media invention, or a term that was intended by gun control activists to foster confusion with the public over differences between full automatic and semi-automatic firearms, while others argue that the term was promulgated by the firearms industry itself.

The graf goes together with the one I've proposed to add "Legally," to the beginning of in previous post. --Lightbreather (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

OPPOSE to both As the lede says, the definitions are both legal and political. There is no citation showing that the definitions fall under one or the other, in fact the citations support that these fall under both definitions simultaneously. Also, adding qualifiers, such as "Legally" and "Politically" imply that what follows in the rest of the sentence is somehow unreal or unimportant. It waters down the rest of the sentence. This attempt to shoebox the ideas is innacurate and not supported by citations. leave it like it is. If it works don't fix it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe, Gaijin42, North8000: Would you please share your thoughts on this? Do you think that syncronizing the order of the elements in the hatnote, the lead paragraph, and the second paragraph is a BAD idea? I really don't care if it's legal/political (as I changed it to on Dec. 4) or political/legal (as I changed it to on Dec. 23), but I think it would benefit readers and editors, too.

Also, do you think the following paragraphs are each both about political and legal definitions? Before re-order:

The exact definition of the term in this context varies among the jurisdictions limiting or prohibiting assault weapon manufacture, importation, sale, or possession, and legislative attempts are often made to change the definitions. Governing and defining laws include the now defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. At that time, the U.S. Justice Department said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use." State and local laws, often derived from or including definitions verbatim from the expired federal law, also define the term.

It has been asserted that the term is a media invention or a term that was intended by gun control activists to foster confusion with the public over differences between full automatic and semi-automatic firearms, while others argue that the term was promulgated by the firearms industry itself.

After re-order:

Politically, it has been asserted that the term is a media invention, or a term that was intended by gun control activists to foster confusion with the public over differences between full automatic and semi-automatic firearms, while others argue that the term was promulgated by the firearms industry itself.

Legally, the definition of the term varies among the various jurisdictions limiting or prohibiting assault weapon manufacture, importation, sale, or possession. Legislative attempts are often made to change the definitions. Governing and defining laws include the now defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. At that time, the U.S. Justice Department said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use." State and local laws, often derived from or including definitions verbatim from the expired federal law, also define the term.

Further, do you think that the section re-ordering on 24 DEC 2013 does not improve the structure and readability of the article? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Military-style changed to ergonomic, again

This sentence: In discussions about firearms laws and politics in the U.S., an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine and one or more cosmetic, military-style features, such as a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or a pistol grip.

Keeps getting changed to this: In discussions about firearms laws and politics in the U.S., an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine and one or more cosmetic, or ergonomic features, such as a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or a pistol grip.

(Same change hidden among other edits here (edit summary "fixed"?), and here (edit summary "for clarity"?).)

The cited source is this: "Babay, Emily (December 22, 2012). "Confusion abounds: Just what is an 'assault weapon'?". Philadelphia Media Network. Retrieved December 28, 2012."

As I said in my edit summary of 23 DEC 2013: "'ergonomic' does not appear in source, whose 3rd graf says: '... the phrase "assault weapon" is often used to describe semi-automatic, military-style rifles.... These firearms have ... cosmetic features that make them look like military weapons.'")

Therefore, if it is important to the article (is it?) that the adjective "ergonomic" be added (added) to this sentence, another source should be added to support the inclusion. However, "ergonomic" is not a synonym for "military-style" so it should not replace it, IMHO. Lightbreather (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

We don't need a citation for every little word in the article. Pistol grips are ergonomic features, we do not need a citation that says so. Just as we do not need a citation that says that cars are a form of "transportation". Citations are to confirm material that may be in dispute. Is somebody contending that some of the features are NOT ergonomic? There are plenty of citations that mention pistol grips as specifically banned, ie."ergonomic". Unless somebody is contending that the cosmetic features are something other than "military-style" (perhaps art-deco?) there is no reason to say it again, it's just bad English. The cosmetic features are already known to be "military-style", ie. They are "military" cosmetic features. The words "military-style" are therefore redundant, and POV in this case, because the wording implies that the features belong only to military weapons and not civilian weapons. The only wording that should be changed (or in this case added), is that at least one of the features is a safety feature, ie. The barrel shroud. I'll add that now while I am thinking about it. Thanx. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Anastrophe, Gaijin42, North8000, and ??? - Do you agree with Sue's reply? Lightbreather (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Collapsible stocks and pistol grips are ergonomic as they allow the rifle to be adjusted to fit the shooter. I see nothing wrong with the use of the word in those contexts. Barrel shrouds, sound suppressors and flash suppressors are actually safety devices. To protect shooters' vision, hearing, etc. If firearms were regulated by a consumer protection group like the antis have been screeching about for years, silencers would be mandatory.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

First just to clarify, (those first links just went to entire versions of the article) we're talking about the first sentence in the second paragraph of the lead.

My opinion is driven by prioritizing making the article accurate and informative for the typical reader. And the lead should summarize what is in the article (and sourcing is usually for what is in the body) so we we should feel free to provide an accurate informative summary. First I have a problem with the main wording of the sentence, although a few tweaks would fix that. That whole sentence is describing guns (e.g. the AR-15) that like like Assault rifles whereas the definitions in laws very often include totally different types of firearms (such as the pistor configurations that police carry due to magazine size). So most definitions include those described in the sentence plus others, so the 'defined as" is not accurate. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I just tweaked that a bit; now on to the discussion at hand. North8000 (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

"Military style" alone would be deceptive to a typical reader.

I hate to bring this up given the amount of conversation we already had on it, but what would folks think of the idea of expanding that list to include the other ones (bayonet mount etc.) and remove all characterizing adjectives? North8000 (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I can agree to that: Name features common to the definitions; use word "features," without adjectives; remove source citation (esp. if we name features not included in source). Save adjectives for body and source. Lightbreather (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

North: I made this change. Lightbreather (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Reverted of course. What is it about the word "cosmetic"? Are we in for another six months or another year of this? This is classic WP:CRUSH behaviour, all over again, picking up from last year. Why? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Citations needed

Anybody looking for sources for the multiple "Citation needed" tags in this article? I looked for some when I put them there... I think I put most of them there, and many, many weeks ago. Going once, going twice...

I'm tired of these articles having these unsourced statements in them. Lightbreather (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that there is only one in there at the moment (I know that a lot just happened, so maybe my comment is off the target of your question) ) and it is on the first phrase in a sentence. IMO it is "sky is blue" preface/setup for the main statement / second half of the sentence which is explicitly sourced, and I'm guessing that the sources given for the sentence probably also cover the preface. North8000 (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There were three, in the lead. Miguel has provided sources for two, which I am currently reading. He deleted the other, which I restored, pending discussion here. Lightbreather (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The majority of all so-called AW legislation lists rifles as a majority of the firerarms affected. Are you that slow that you cannot see that? Does that really need a citation? Do you assume people are that stupid that they can not see a list of 70 rifles, a dozen pistols and 8 shotguns and not arrive at the same conclusion?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• B-Class Firearms articles
• High-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles
• Start-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles