Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Updates to this article to combat partisan misinformation

Someone modified the article to suggest the AWB was written by now-VP Joe Biden. I removed that phony reference and also added detailed information on the actual voting records for this controversial piece of legislation. Many gun enthusiasts call this legislation "The Clinton ban" and suggest that Democrats are enemies of the 2nd amendment and Republicans care more about gun rights. The actual voting record on this legislation shows otherwise. Please help patrol this article to avoid it being corrupted to serve partisan interests. The facts show that the AWB was a bipartisan effort, and in no way, were Republicans more against the ban than Democrats.--Argeaux2 (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your information. It appears clear to me that it was indeed a largely Democrat effort. The final vote in the Senate was 61/ 38/ 1. For Democrats there were 54 yes and 2 no For Republican it was 7 yes and 36 no.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/103/senate/2/votes/295/

The vote you seem to reference was the vote to send it to conference (where the belief by many was that the Assault Weapon's language would have been removed since it did not appear in the House bill) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.84.146 (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Also this statement is patently false "The house vote on the ban was a voice vote and not recorded." The voice vote in the house was for the bill without the assault weapon ban language. That language was added to the bill in conference after being introduced in the Senate. Please provide some references. Or please fix the entry (I don't really know how or I would do it myself.) Why hide the fact that Democrats overwhelmingly supported the ban, while Republicans generally opposed it? Obscuring this fact seems partisan to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.84.146 (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Today on Google Hangout VP Biden took credit and confirmed he was the author of the original assault weapons ban in 1994. That partisan effort egg is laid to rest now. http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2013/01/24/white-house-hangout-vice-president-joe-biden-reducing-gun-violence Trustedgunny (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Changing of "Assault Weapons" defention for ban

I don't think we can fit this into the article, but I would like to point out that the news media changed the definition of "Assault Weapons" to get more people to recomend the ban. Before the ban came into play, assault weapons were used in less than 1% of crimes (they were used in a fraction of a percentage!) so the news media changed the definition of "assault weapon" (which had a very narrow defenition) to a new definition which included many, many, many more types of weapons (such as pistols that contain 15 bullet magazines). After the news media bent the truth and lied about the definition of "assault weapon" they were able to bring the percentage of assault weapons used in crimes from under 1% to about 15-20%. In essence, the assault weapons ban banned not just assault weapons, but countless other guns that were now being classified as "assault weapons" just so they could pass this insane law. Once again, i dont know where we can add that into the article, and it would need to be cleaned up quite a bit, but just remember that when editing this article because im sensing a searious vibe from it that this whole article seems to be saying "This ban was a good thing and should be passed once again" even though the ban should have only banned weapons used in a fraction of a percentage of crimes because actual "assalt weapons" are to hard to use in crime as they are difficult to conceal and to purchase. DurotarLord 15:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Assault Weapon is a "fake" term. You might be thinking of Assault Rifle's, which are select fire rifles favored by the military and law enforcement. . "Assault Weapon" is essentially (generalization) any weapon that looks military and "scary." Too many left-wing housewives watch too much bad media.67.167.187.211 03:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and weasel words

This article is still full of NPOV statements, such as the law "created a confusing and arbitrary definition". This is the reason for the tag

• Assault rifles are fully-automatic weapons that spray hundreds of rounds of ammunition a minute. They are also one of the most regulated items in the United States. So-called "assault weapons" are semi-automatic weapons that fire one round per trigger pull. They are picked on for arbitrary characteristics such as bayonet lugs. Did anybody who voted for this ban really believe that there were drive-by bayonetings occuring in the slums of Los Angeles? Did anybody actually believe that grenades were being tossed about? Did anybody believe that a gangbanger that would have the audacity to shoot at people from a moving car would worry about bystanders seeing the muzzle flash? And did anybody _actually_ believe that a gangbanger who wanted to purchase a so-called "assault weapon" would care that the law tells him he can't? Not when he can buy whatever the heck he wants from another gangbanger cash-and-carry.

• Before this gun ban, there was no such thing as a high-capacity magazine. 30 or more rounds of ammunition in a magazine was considered normal. Semi-automatic weapons do not spray-fire. The maximum sustained fire rate for the Colt AR15 is less than 15 rounds per minute. Anything higher for a prolonged period of time is going to get the chamber up to a temperature where the weapon will be extremely unsafe to handle. A pistol grip is for ergonomics and does not allow somebody to fire a weapon that recoils and bounces around with one hand. Car seats, cooking knives, pillows and mattresses are all ergonomically designed, along with hundreds of other inanimate objects. Does an ergonomically designed car seat make a Honda Civic run 10s in a quarter-mile? I didn't think so. </soapbox> Point being, a semi-automatic weapon is a semi-automatic weapon and arbitrary features do not make it any more deadly than any other gun. Semi-automatic weapons have been around for over 100 years. Like the Washington Post said, this ban was merely a symbolic stepping stone to broader control and eventual confiscation.

• This law has been criticized as being ineffective because the particular features that are prohibited do not greatly enhance the capabilities of a given weapon.

• I just happen to find it funny that the list preceding this sentence featured a detachable grenade launcher. -- Erzengel 10:51 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

FYI, a "grenade launcher" is an adapter that accepts a grenade which was then fired by a blank. If you don't know about it, it might really sound scary.--(talk) 05:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• The CRPA members opposing the AWCA were amused by the same point. In the U.S., since 1934 grenade launchers have been subject to draconian federal licensing laws. Banning them is redundant, obviously a matter of political posturing. Something not widely realized is that in the U.S., wealthy individuals can purchase almost any weapon, after paying license fees well beyond the reach of most individuals. Wealthy individuals are often very well armed, and the very politicians who support gun control usually themselves carry concealed weapons (e.g., both California Senators: Boxer and Feinstein, whose concealed-carry pistol permits are matters of public record). The hypocrisy is breathtaking. A grenade launcher on a weapon is little more than a modified flash surpressor -- a gas spigot powered by a blank cartridge. The launcher itself does nothing to increase the lethality of the firearm. The grenade itself would certainly increase lethality, but grenades are regulated by completely separate legislation. When was the last time you heard of a grenade attack in an American city? You can buy a grenade launcher equipped rifle (SKS) for about $120, but good luck finding any grenades!

• I feel the article violates NPOV... basically it just states how pointless and horrible the law which is opionion even if it's a well founded one.

• You'll need to explain why the AWB is "well founded."

• The article is obivously biased, as is the one on assault weapons. The author is using his entry to promote the cause of the gun lobby.

• The author states nothing that isn't factual. If you insist on claiming bias: which pieces of information are untrue, and what relevant information is omitted?

• I agree. While the article sounds very bias because it points out all the fallacies of the law, it is actually objective because it just so happens the foundation of the law is itself based on fallacy. It is therefore no surprise that a neutral article would point this out. Being neutral does NOT mean equal weight to two sides of a discussion, but rather factual presentation of the facts and only the facts. If any of the points presented do not make sense to an objector, he or she should point out exactly what is not neutral and present a counter point instead of just hand waving an arugment he or she does not understand him/her self. Wodan 17:07, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

• I don't think it's really possible to be unbiased on this issue; it's impossible to consider the issue and be unbiased, because you'll either see banning "assault weapons" as logically founded, or you'll see banning certain types (based on cosmetic features) as stupid and illogical, and that what you do with those weapons should be regulated and not that you have them. "Guns don't kill people; the Government does" -- Dale Gribble on King of the Hill. As for promoting the cause of the gun lobby; wouldn't they know more about the weapons, in many cases having grown up around firearms, than someone who grew up in someplace like California or France and has always been taught to be afraid of them and never touch them? I think when talking about the guns, you need to be familiar with them, so that rules out people that are more likely to ban them (or want them banned). That the gunban lobby and the media always show footage of fully automatic weapons is relevant, but perhaps should be linked to Media bias.

"This law is ineffective because the particular features that are prohibited do not enhance the capabilities of a given weapon, they remain in fact identical to their non-prohibited counterparts except for mainly aesthetic changes. Thus, making these features illegal does nothing to prevent crime or make the guns any less dangerous, especially since they were used in less than 1% of crimes to begin with. What could be effective is the ban on high capacity magazines for these weapons, although it is extremely rare for crimes to involve firing over 10 rounds."

I don't consider this fact (and got rid of it) - ask the NRA for their opionion of the numbers that support this, and you'll get totally different answer from what you'd get if you asked the Brady Campaign people the same question. If you want to state why the AWB is ineffectual, show some independent evidence.

• I own military guns as curios and relics, and participate in military target matches requiring either original military guns or authentic replicas. My Yugo M70AB2 (AK47 variant) has folding stock, 30 round detachable box magazine, muzzle brake on the threaded muzzle, grenade launcher sights, flip-up night sights, and cleaning rod under the barrel: all military features that have been subject to AWB hysteria. Which are on my gun because that is the configuration it was in military service. Remove these cosmetic features and it still shoots bullets just as deadly (and removing the recoil brake would make it shorter and more concealable). Recently we had a drug-dealer ambush-type murder: the killers used ordinary single-barrel single-shot shotguns which were not even sawn-off. In another drug-related murder a home invader killed two drug dealers with a basebat bat. So my compound should be Wacoized under Ruby Ridge Rules of Engagement because my gun has a cleaning rod under the barrel (evil military feature). How is that supposed to deter or affect people who commit violence against other people? Felonizing non-criminal citizens by redefining their legal guns to illegal based on cosmetic features in the name of crime control? How does creating nonviolent felony criminals by redefining legal to illegal at whim enhance public safety? Also another poster claimed that threaded barrels were unnecessary on 'hunting guns' because they enabled the attachment of silencers and silencers were illegal. One, I know owners of legal silencers (the ATF tax stamp on their Form 1 is cool) and Two, the government of Finland approves silencers on hunting guns to prevent hearing loss among hunters. AWB is supported by people who watch too much TV and movies and know nothing real about guns or crime.Naaman Brown (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with automatic weapons?

It's hard to tell which one of you is more uninformed. Automatic weapons are most certainly not illegal at the federal level. They simply require more paperwork and the payment of a tax. You're wasting space here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.47 (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the Brady campaign website, the bill bans by name the manufacture of UZIs, Kalashnikovs, Tec-9s and AR-15s I think the ban is being misrepresented as just banning hunting rifles or collector's pieces, which it clearly does not.

• I need not be too bold to claim that you obviously know very little about firearms. Automatic weapons have been banned federally since the 1930s, so no, this ban indeed has nothing to do with automatic weapons whatsoever. It has to do with semi-automatic weapons. Banning manufacture names is also meaningless, since one can always just change the name of the gun, and similarly, each manufacture can make a wide array of gun types. Wodan 01:42, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Automatic weapons have NOT "been banned federally since the 1930s". They have been regulated since the 1934 National Firearms Act, which enables the federal government to authorize (or deny) the transfer of an automatic weapon (or short barreled rifle/shotgun) to a prospective buyer. The process entails submitting a completed Form 4, fingerprint cards, passport quality photographs and $200 to the ATF. IF they approve the transfer (generally a 6 month process), the seller will be informed that the transfer is authorized. SOME STATES have banned all or some of the weapons that fall under the 1934 NFA legislation - check local and state laws.

good of you to add your little insult as you began your response. However, i do know a good deal about guns, and my point remains. yours does not. Whether or not automatics were already illegal before Brady, the Assault Weapons Ban mentions them, and thus it does indeed have something to do with automatics.

• You need not be insulted, for I have simply tried to give yourself and readers some insight about your lack of knowledge, as was once again displayed by your response. Please do not be so defensive, as nor is this meant to be an insult. Just because one is not an expert in a certain field does is no reason for bad feelings. Perhaps if you are willing, I would be happy to educate you. If your response will be "I'm already educated enough, no thanks" then it is unfortunate that you are so closed minded. But to answer your new comment... no, the Assault Weapon Ban once again does nothing to ban anything of an automatic nature. Nor does it mention it anywhere in the congressional act itself. If you don't believe me, you can read this directly on the Brady Campaign web site. Wodan 02:04, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

In response to the post above mine:

In the same logic, a Chevy Monte Carlo would be able to do 200mph like a NASCAR Monte Carlo with Dale Earnhardt Jr. behind the wheel, just because it says "Monte Carlo" somewhere in the name, and there are two or more racing decals, correct? *cpio*

Don't feed the anons, Wodan. I was a bit amused (although simultaneously disgusted) at the page you link to above, however, particularly its handy bullet list of banned features:

• A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines.

  Because that second and a half required to change clips mid-rampage goes a long way toward stemming gun crime.

• A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat.

  Like simply removing the stock (a perfectly legal act) doesn't do this.

• A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed.

  Are they serious? How does one "spray-fire" a semiautomatic rifle, much less from the hip or with one hand? (Someone has seen a few too many Charles Bronson movies, I think.)

  The HK91, a semi-automatic target rifle chambered in 7.62x51mm AKA .308, was included in the Clinton gun ban. I would pay a fair amount of money to anybody that can rapid-fire this weapon with one hand from the hip.

• A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire.

  Apparently they have access to some high-tech refrigerated barrel shroud I'm not familiar with. That would be handy the next time I'm mowing down innocent passers-by with an AR-15 in each hand.

• A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which serves no useful sporting purpose. The flash suppressor allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping the shooter maintain control of the firearm.

• • • • • "SPORTING PURPOSE" IS IRRELEVANT TO THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. THE PURPOSE OF THE SECOND AMMENDMENT WAS NOT TO GRANT BUT RATHER TO RECOGNIZE THE INHERANT, INALIENABLE RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO BEAR ARMS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS RIGHT WAS TO RECOGNIZE THE INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO OWN THE MEANS TO DEFEND HIS/HER LIFE. THIS IS A CORNERSTONE OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH WAS MEANT TO CLEARLY DEFINE AND LIMIT THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT. IMPORTANT IN THE MIND'S OF THE FOUNDERS WITH THE UNLIMITED ARBITRARY POWERS OF THE KING FRESH IN THEIR MINDS, WAS TO RECOGNIZE THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT AS A LAST RESORT TO DEFEND AGAINST TYRANNY AND DESPOTISM WITH THE FORCE OF ARMS.

ASK A LOS ANGELES KOREAN STORE OWNER DURING THE LA RIOTS, OR A NEW ORLEANS HOMEOWNER IN THE FRENCH QUARTER DURING HURRICANE KATRINA, OR A JEW WAITING TO BE LOADED INTO A CATTLE CAR AND HERDED TO THEIR DEATH BY THE NAZIS, OR COUNTLESS OTHERS VICTIMIZED BY TYRANICAL GOVERNMENTS AND CRIMINALS; WHY WOULD GOOD PEOPLE WOULD EVER NEED A SO-CALLED "ASSAULT RIFLE"? A HOLE WING OF MY FAMILY WAS MURDERED BY THE NAZIS, WHO IRONICALLY SHARED THE SAME BELIEFS AS TODAYS ANTI-GUN VICTIM DISARMAMENT CROWD; ONLY THE POLICE, MILITARY AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS SHOULD HAVE MILITARY STYLE FIREARMS.

"SPORTING PURPOSES" AND "REASONABLE GUN CONTROL MEASURES" ARE NOT THE HALLMARK OF FREE PEOPLE THEY ARE THE CREED OF TYRANTS AND SLAVES. SOME PROTECTION THESE CONCEPTS GAVE THE MILLIONS KILLED AND OTHERWISE VICTIMIZED BY HITLER, STALIN, TOJO, POL POT, MAO ETC.....

It's depressing that our VERY LOUD FRIEND here has a better understanding of law, history and society than the rest of these new world pinkos. One might hope that a discussion page of a law that blatantly infringes on the right to keep and bear arms, in a country with a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, would have the word "constitution" in it more than twice.68.230.13.87 (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this is another blatant non sequitur or simply sheer ignorance. A flash suppressor does absolutely nothing for concealment, as it works in a manner precisely opposite what they seem to think—flash suppressors shield the operator from the muzzle's blinding flash. I'm not a hunter, but I can imagine this being rather useful—it's a good thing flash suppressors don't require a threaded barrel.

• A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers are illegal so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon.

  Silencers are, in fact, legal, provided you have the money to license them. Again, I'm not a hunter, but doesn't it seem like it would be handy to be able to take a shot without, I don't know, frightening the animals away? (And since when do assassins care about laws?

Silencers ain't no such thing. Better to call them suppressors. Their utility for shooters is obvious, even to a non-shooter like me, along with anyone else able to appreciate the damage done to one's audition by exposure to the noise of firearms. Even with hearing protection, the use of a suppressor provides a margin of safety for people who maintain the levels of practice necessary to get and keep proficiency and accuracy in the handling of firearms. Were there not nonsensical legal obstructions posed by civil government, their use on shooting ranges would be widespread, and gratefully received by everyone concerned (including neighbors).

• A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which obviously serves no sporting purpose.

  But apparently poses a clear and present danger to society. Take anything you want, just don't spear the kids!

Seldom have I seen a more pathetic, misinformed, kneejerk group. References to fully automatic firearms—which, as Wodan points out, aren't even mentioned in the bill—abound in their pages upon pages of ignorant propaganda. I'm not surprised our anon was duped. Austin Hair 03:32, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Could someone edit the second paragraph of the "Provisions" section so it's clear what the "these" refers to, ie it just says "these are all semi-automatic firearms" etc without being in context at all... Evercat 14:51, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Done. Wodan 01:53, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Out of curiosity: I read this CNN article which says AK-47s and Uzis can now be bought - but I gather from our article and the talk above that fully automatic weapons are still illegal. So is CNN just completely wrong, or do semi-automatic-only Uzis and AK-47s exist? Confused, Evercat 17:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Semi-automatic-only versions of many fully automatic weapons do exist. This is because most countries ban fully automatic weapons and it is not very hard for gun manufacturers to simply remove the fully automatic feature of weapons they already make. Concerning the CNN article you read, the assault weapons ban made the semi-automatic versions of fully automatic weapons illegal. I believe this was because it is not hard to convert a semi-automatic gun back to a fully automatic gun if the parts are already made. The article you read was talking about the federal assult weapons ban automatically expiring ten years after it went into effect, which happened today (Monday September 13, 2004). Now that the assault weapons ban has expired, you are free to buy all the weapons that it banned, as long as the state you live in has not also banned the same weapons, which is true of California and many other states. I hope this answers you question.

Well, not an American myself, you see, but thanks for the explanation. :-) Evercat 23:06, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• The above explanation is mostly accurate, but not actually correct. The ban did not make "the semi-automatic versions of fully automatic weapons illegal." What the ban did was to ban weapons with cosmetic features deemed similar to offensive weapons; not necessarily weapons that were ever automatic nor weapons that necessarily have an automatic form elsewhere. Again, the provinsions of the law are nicely outlined on the Brady Campaign web site.
• As far as converting semi-automatic weapons to automatic... some are very difficult to do, some are easier than others. But neither have anything to do with the ban, since there are semi-automatic weapon varients of automatic weapons that were not covered by the ban that can be more easily converted to automatic than those covered by the ban. Once again, the ban only banned weapons based on cosmetic features (what "looks" offensive). There are other laws which cover the illegal conversion of semi-automatic weapons to automatic.
• The original question asked if CNN is completely wrong. Ignorant is a more correct term. The explanation I just wrote above is not simple for most people to easily understand unless they are very familiar with firearms. This is the main reason people have such a strong misconception of the assault weapon ban itself. The media is just as guilty of this as anybody, since I doubt most anchorpersons could tell you the difference between an AR-15, an M4, a semi-automatic Uzi, or an M1A (4 weapons I just listed, all of them military style: two are covered by the ban, one was not but illegal anyway, and one was not and was legal). Unfortunately much of this ignorance even spreads to the law enforcement community, who think that banning weapons with a folding stock or bayonet lug will somehow protect them in shootouts. A perfect example of this ignorance is using the DC sniper case as an example in favor of the Assault Weapon Ban, as many law enforcement agencies have done. The DC sniper fired one round at each victim and never more. He therefore not only didn't need a "high capacity" magazine nor a 10 round magazine, but in fact needed no magazine at all! He also could have used a simple hunting single-shot rifle and been probably more accurate in his killings. There is a time and a place to debate whichever opinions one has on the 2nd amendment and gun control, but unfortunately this law is so completely misunderstood that its misinformation permeates through the media and much of the law enforcement community.

Wodan 02:34, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

• I rearranged the article somewhat, and attempted to soften anti-ban POV. This paragraph I removed entirely, as I was unable to think of anywhere to put it or to make the point it makes in a less POV way:

Classification of assault-style weapons, being based on mostly cosmetic characteristics, has proven extremely difficult since there is no functional difference between the types of firearms targeted for these bans and many very common hunting and target-shooting firearms. By any measure, caliber, rate of fire, accurate range, ease of use, magazine capacity, etc. these so-called "assault-style weapons" are identical in function to countless other firearms. Thus, the only way to specify a ban that only bans the intended firearms is to do so by cosmetics or model name/number, those being the only real differences. In response, when a weapon is banned as an assault weapon, the manufacturer simply makes the required cosmetic changes to its physical appearance which render it legal again. In response to that, some laws banning assault weapons have been subjected to several revisions since they were first passed.

The history section could use some detail about the passage of the law and its aftermath (it often gets blamed/credited with the 1994 republican revolution)

Are there still NPOV complaints? BCoates 15:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I put in a new section "Deficiencies in the definition" which is a rewording of the paragraph removed in a NPOV form. I think "deficiiencies in the definition" is completely NPOV as opposed to "problems with..." or "loopholes in..." Anyhow, I think it should be left in since the deficiencies in the definition (or loopholes, or problems, whatever you call it), was a chief complaint of the AWB and one of the primary reasons for its expiration. It therefore integral part of the understanding the ban and why it was not extended. Therefore very relevant and important to include in the article. Wodan 16:26, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

• I think that this is still npov: "Based on engineering differences...According to gun rights advocates, these bans have purely symbolic and propaganda purposes with no chance of reducing violent crime." Someone (maybe me) needs to add to this the reason the gun control advocates support this ban. protohiro 07:01, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I also have a problem with this passage:

" Classification of assault-style weapons, being based on mostly cosmetic characteristics...these so-called "assault-style weapons" are identical in function to just about any semi-automatic firearm. Thus, the law banned firearms by defining unwanted cosmetic features or model name/number. In response, when a weapon is banned as an assault weapon, the manufacturer simply makes the required cosmetic changes to its physical appearance which render it legal again."

Quoting assault-style weapons, with the clarifyer "so-called", then calling the features "cosmetic" is NPOV. If the features are cosmetic why do police and military want them? How is a muzzle-break, a barrel shroud, a folding stock cosmetic? These features make the gun more effective for combat, or are they just to improve the style for the military? protohiro 07:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• "Cosmetic" is used to describe the types of features that are banned... that means what one sees with the eye, not necessarily a functional use. Superfiscial perhaps may be a better words than cosmetic, although superfiscial tends to sound biased, although it is more accurate of an explanation. Just because a gun shares outward features similar to that of military weapons does not necessarily make it more effective for combat or more deadly. For example, most military weapons are black. Does that mean that the color black should be considered for banning purposes? One could conceivably argue that black weapons are more easily concealed, so therefore only neon weapons should be allowed since it is assumed they will only be used for peaceful purposes anyway. Then again, black is not a very effective concealing color, so maybe we should ban rifles with a cammo pattern? This is about equally absurd to what the AWB actually does.... To correct your question, muzzle-breaks are not banned, only flash suppressors. A barrel shroud is not a banned feature on a rifle, only on a pistol, which is a lot less deadly than a rifle. As far as folding stocks go, weapons are fired far less effectively when the stock is in the folded or position. The reason many rifles in the military have folding stocks is situationally dependent. For example, the entire Marine Corps infantry is equipped with fixed stock only weapons... and that is not because they cannot afford something "more effective," but because one fires more accurately with a stock that is extended and in the shoulder. So to say a folding stock is somehow a more combat effective feature is really silly, and just unfortunate ignorance. A counterpoint is to say that a folding stock allows concealability more easily, and therefore makes it more deadly in an urban area. However, rifles already have a minimum length requirement by law so that they cannot be concealed under a jacket or something. What then would a folding stock ban also be needed? Why does the government care if a rifle is 26" mostly in the stock or in the receiver? The answer is simple: folding stocks look scarier. The other cosmetic features such as bayonet lugs, or defining if the magazine can has to attach inside or outside the pistol grip are all non-fundamental functional differences... hence cosmetic. Wodan 02:04, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Aside from a few bizarre ones (grenade lanucher, barrel shroud) the features being banned are generally useful ones, and not just to make the weapons "look scarier". Instad of "cosmetic", how about "arbitrary"? The characteristics banned don't seem to have any particular relation any bad use of firearms (violent crime, accidents, paramilitary actions) but are just a more or less random selection of things sometimes found on military weapons. BCoates 08:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I would disagree. They are hardly arbitrary. Arbitrary would be banning things with absolutely no logic. If the ban was applied for weapons starting with the letter "K" or weapons designed by men named "Jim" then it would be arbitrary. However, the external features picked are purposefully similar to a misguided Hollywood founded public consciousness of "dangerousness." Pick whatever word you want, but the features are definitely visual in nature. If you line up weapons with flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, folding stocks, and pistol grips to the public next to ones without those features, I would bet most people would think that those weapons were somehow more dangerous because of the way they looked. Hence the features are far from arbitrary, definitely not defined by usefulness of reducing crime, and probably best described as visual characteristics. Wodan 13:25, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Wodan and friends- this page is still basically a list of reasons why the AWB is a bad thing. This is totally POV, period. A lot of people disagree with the "facts" in this article. I think the article needs a complete rewrite because there a two apposing points of few here that need close to equal time if this encyclopedia is going to provide unbiased info on the topic.

• Being NPOV does not mean "equal time" on a page. You wouldn't want neo-nazis to have equal time on a page on the holocaust saying it never happened, do you? NPOV simply means stating all the facts, and just the facts, ommiting opinions being represented as facts, NOT "equal time" in the number of words or lines. If a specific statement is contested to be NPOV then it should be brought up. Wodan 13:39, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

I belive, for example, that the deficiencies in the ban, for example, were a result of NRA lobbying that comprised the ban in to near uselessness in a lot of ways. But pistol grips MUST be more than cosmetic or they wouldn't put them on military assault rifles. I don't understand the details, but I have never seen a hunter with a pistol grip. It seems to me that gun enthusiasts, ie collectors, just want to be able to own and shoot a variety of different weapons, and don't appreciate regulation. Supporters of the ban see a weapon with large magazines, flash suppressors, pistol grips, etc as weapons designed to kill people, and they don't want them to be legal. The idea is to keep combat-designed weapons off the streets as much as possible. Don't say that criminals can still get them. That is not the issue. People still murder and that's legal too, bu t no one thinks that making murder illegal is futile. The ban was designed to get certain weapons off the street. An AR-15 with a fixed stock, rifle grip and a five round magazine is not the same weapons as an ar-15 with a folding stock and a 30 round magazine. A bank robber armed with such a weapon is a much more serious threat. He doesn't have to reload, he can fire from the hip, raise the weapon to fire more quickly, etc. He is more effective in combat. That is why police support the ban. They would like to be facing fewer criminals armed with serious firepower. We aren't talking about your average gun crime here. A five round magazine is plenty to shoot a friend or spouse, or rob a liquor store. The goal is to reduce the number of combat designed weapons on the street. No, it won't eliminate them, but it will make it harder to get them. And yes, this casts a wide net. The idea of banning certain features is intended to prevent easy circumvention of the law. You can't just make a kalishnikov, ar-15, tek 9, etc illegal by name. You have to make the features that make the weapon what it is illegal. And yes, a semi-auto .223 hunting rifle can be identical funtionally to an AR-15 (i may have the ammunition wrong, i am not an expert), nevertheless, an AR-15, because of its "cosmetic" features is a much more effective weapon in combat.

• • Well, the .223 round is really only suitable for small-game and varmint hunting. In many states, it's illegal to hunt deer with the .223 Remington cartridge because of how underpowered this cartridge is. Some states don't even allow the use of centerfire rifles for hunting deer, and limit hunters to bow, muzzleloaders (think musket) and smoothbore or rifled shotguns. The M16/M4 series of rifles was not adopted by the military for their destructive power. These rifles were adopted because they fire lighter ammunition, allowing soldiers to carry more ammunition than with the M14 chambered in 7.62x51. These rifles are comfortable to handle, lightweight, reasonably accurate and reliable, easy to clean and maintain and have a short learning curve. The recoil of these rifles can be handled by men and women of any size. With reasonable training, anybody can learn how to use the M16 or M4 series of rifles. And this is why they are popular, not because of any given or perceived ability to destroy man and beast. *cpio*

You are free to disagree with me, and really this is not the place to debate this. You just need to acknowledge that there IS a debate, and as long as the point of few that I share with a large number of people is not represented this article is very POV. protohiro 06:56, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Yes, there certainly is a debate going on in many places. However, and please don't take this as an insult or something offensive, but it is largely fueled by people who are simply not gun experts and don't really know the details of what they are talking about. How can somebody want to ban something like pistol grips without having vast in depth knowledge of firearms and shooting with and without them? Just because what he "thinks" would make sense? That is the reason uneducated outsiders don't regular the automobile or nuclear industry. It is ridiculous for people who are not gun experts to think they know what they are talking about without any personal experience on the matter. This misunderstanding is unfortunately propagated by the media and even ignorant law enforcement agencies who don't deal with assault type weapons much. In a theoretical experiment where one had an AR-15 without a pistol grip and an AR-15 with pistol grip, and one had to go shoot at as many targets as possible, I doubt there would be much of a difference in the results. In fact, "shooting from the hip" is inherently more inaccurate since one is not even aiming! Nobody who knows how to shoot - military and law enforcement included - EVER shoots form the hip unless it is an absolutely last resort, and even then, it's so rare I can't even comprehend it happening. I would agree that in RARE situations which may happen once in a VERY rare time, a classic killing spree where one walks into an office and kills 12 people, maybe only 11 people would have been killed otherwise. However, banning weapons from the other 60 million law abiding citizens because of this bizarre, rare, and unpredictable event is completely against the American philosophy. Otherwise we should ban all cars when an elderly person runs over a crowd of people. The AWB simply does not represent what is its stated purpose and is compltely misleading. It's a classic "say one thing and do another" which the government does all the time. It is of the same school of thought of California's recent ban on the .50 caliber BMG weapons - a rifle round which as far as my knowledge and most people's knowledge has NEVER been used in ANY crime in its entire history... which stretches for many decades. Not only that, but now gun makers can simply make a .499999 caliber weapon instead. I'm afraid the people behind these ideas, our "NPOV friends" are for enlarge part simply uninformed and quite POV themselves. Wodan 13:39, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

• You admit that you have no idea how a pistol grip would make a rifle more deadly, but argue that it must be so, for an AR-15 is unarguably more "combat-effective"—although we are "free to disagree." In addition to being based on circular logic, your argument is simply false. Military assault rifles are fitted with pistol grips for stability during fully automatic fire. As automatic weapons are already effectively banned, the prohibition only affects semiautomatic clones, on which a pistol grip is a purely cosmetic feature. A statement is not POV simply because one can disagree with it—I can argue that black holes are really portals to Candyland, but no one would seriously contend that this viewpoint should be given equal time on our article on black holes, even if I concede that one may disagree in believing that black holes are really clusters of superdense cosmic material. Austin Hair 20:42, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

---

• I think this page needs a complete rewrite, it obviously started POV, we need an article here that lays out the objective history, provides some links and briefly summarizes the opposing viewpoints. The "deficiencies" section doesn't belong here, because those aren't deficiences, they are the pov views of opponents, which is fine, but this article remains a summary of arguments against the ban.

protohiro 07:00, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• The AWB was not renewed by the federal government because it was considered a failure. It is therefore important to understand why and what was wrong with it, hence its deficiencies. It is not POV just because something's deficiencies are pointed out. In fact, NOT pointing out major deficiciencies would be POV in itself. All facts must be stated in order to be objective. If there is a specific statement which one feels is incorrect than those points should be brought out. But just to say that something is POV because it highlights problems with the bill is POV in itself. Wodan 13:13, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
• I changed the deficiences section to try to stick to the undisputed weaknesses in the law, giving some specific examples and a quote & link from a major anti-gun group that agrees that the law didn't do very much. As far as I can tell the idea that the law was a failure as anything but, at best, a starting-place for more aggressive legislation is non-controversial, but if you can find serious being published to the contrary, feel free to add them. More explanation of the compromises that were involved in getting the law passed would be great; feel free to add it. BCoates 23:09, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am getting frustrated here. I am not just one crazy here. Yes the ban was imperfect, but saying that it was just completely wrong is POV, because that is opinion. There is no way we are resolving the POV dispute on this page as it stands now. I really think we need to pare this article down to the objective facts about the ban: the history, what it bans, when it expired. then a section of arguements for and against. Have a look at Brady Bill for a great example of a NPOV article on these issues. Just the facts. protohiro 17:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Nobody is saying you're crazy. Nor is anybody saying the ban was "wrong." Nowhere in the article is "right" versus "wrong" addressed in relation to the AWB. The article simply illustrates what the provisions were, they're deficiencies and resulting consequencies, and the ban's history. The rest of the page is related to state laws. The article already is broken down to all the simple facts. Nowhere are opinions offered, only facts. I'm not even sure what the POV dispute here is? What is being disputed? Be specific. Wodan 01:54, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

• I think the changes by BCoates do it for me, I didn't look at them before because I was only briefly at the computer and honestly didn't notice the change. I think my main objection was the deficiencies page, which I think was well edited by Bcoates to be NPOV. I am going to remove the NPOV dispute. If someone objects to the changes by bcoates we can put it back and keep working on it, but otherwise I think this article works for me. protohiro 05:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• There was a grammar error, so I fixed it. I didn't change any of the substance. Wodan 13:13, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

A user named GreatLeapForward just vandalized the page and created all sorts of POV statements. I tried my best to revert it. Examples of his statements were:

• ...ban expired on September 13, 2004 because of the failure of the Republican second Bush administration to push for and the failure of the Republican majorities
• The complete deletion of key legal consequenceis
• Introduction of many POV terms such as "extreme right elements" , "rightists" , "Conspiracists among gun enthusiasts", etc. etc. etc.

GreatLeapForward: You have to understand that this page has been undergoing editing and NPOV adjustments for a long time now, and is the representation of hard work from members on both side of the issue who have agreed on a NPOV article. What you did was come along and present your own opinion in the article, completely destroying the hard work of others. If you want to make changes to the page, especially such drastic measures, you should bring it up here for discussion first. If you instead vandalize the article again, I will nominate your account for deletion from Wikipedia. Wodan 01:52, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Quick question: If the intent of the ban (stated intent, anyway) was to ban military-style weapons, why didn't they just ban all consumer versions of military assault rifles?

Not-as-quick-answer: Because that would mean the firearms specifically used by military forces, each of which is generally manufactured by one manufacturer or secondary manufacturers using a liscense, so other manufacturers could make slightly different versions of the weapons and get by it. Also, you then have to ask what constitutes a legitimate military, and that recquires some legal interpritation, as some third-world militaries do not have general-issue weapons, so then you would either have to find out what every nation builds and purchases, or limit it to particular militaries, thus limiting the weapons that are banned. In short, it would be a big headache to determine which weapons to ban and which not to using such vague terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrnell (talk • contribs) 17:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate article

It has been suggested that this article should be merged with Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. I deleted the merge tag from the article because I believe that comments like this don't belong in the article, but in the talk page, where they can be properly discussed. On whether and how the articles should be merged, I personally have no strong view. Enchanter

I would also suggest merging with Assault weapon. Probably the discussion of the federal ban should just be a section of that page, along with sections discussing bans in other jurisdictions.

Needs an illustrative photo of an assault weapon

Can't find a good one at the moment though. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:13, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• There is no single good photo of an assault weapon, since an assault weapon was defined by 5 different possibilie characteristics. Some weapons may have 1, 2, 3 or all 5 on them. They may be made of wood, black plastic, or anything for that matter. They may have a pistol grip and they may not. They may have a folding stock and they may not. It can be anything with those characteristics. A better idea is to perhaps post pictures of each individual characteristic defined by the bill. There is no "one" illustration of an assault weapon, besides the misinformed popular perception. Wodan 20:41, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an assault weapon. It was a meaningless propoganda term created by the anti-gun left to confuse people, existing only in the U.S. Code. With it's repeal, the term has no meaning. -- Spock 00:39, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

I was to understand that the term refers to the original intended use of the weapons, for better use in CQB situations such as trenches and urban enviroments. Either way, the term is still in wide use today. Also, many republicans and indepenents voted for this ban, along with some of the left voting against it. Besides that, the left-right political philosophy is really outdated. Dboyz-x.etown 02:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sugarmann Quote

Rummaging around Google, I can't find any confirmation of the existence of the referenced paper aside from repetitions of this quote. What's your source, Thorne?

This lack of distinguishing characteristics was implied by Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the VPC, years before the federal ban was passed. In his March 1989 paper titled "Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research and Legislation," ...

BCoates 23:36, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That quote can be found here. [1]

Is this section referring to this Sugarmann quote: "Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988

It's the same one from his own page. I saw this article (AWB) several months ago and the quote was included then. Is there any reason it was taken out? Hideaway821 (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Hideaway821

State restrictions

Created a new independent page for state restrictions. I believe it was cluttering up the topic of this page, the federal ban, while also limiting growth of the state restriction section by not being its own article. See Gun Control (in USA by state). Wodan 17:42, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Section 922r compliance added

Added the whole "less than 10 imported parts" information. According to the late Neal Knox (editorial columnist for the shotgun news), this "loophole" contributed to the demise of the assault weapon ban. Having dealt with this 10 part thing personally; I can attest to its impact on the legitimacy of the ban.

Even though the 1994 ban expired, the freedom to carry assault weapons isn't going to last for a long time, I think.

The Federal AWB 1994 expired at 12:01am on Monday, September 13, 2004. The freedom to carry assault weapons won't last long, since there is going to be high rate of crimes appearing in the U.S. In about several years or within a decade, the AWB will be coming up again.

First, the law had nothing to do with carrying assault weapons. Second, what's the point of that comment?

So-called "Assault Weapons" were legal for something like 100 years prior to the ban. The "military-styled" sort that the ban covered were around since circa 1970, and reached a peak of popularity with shooters in the 1980's. All that time, no such "high rates of (AW-related) crimes ocurred. In fact, according to FBI statistics, so-called "assault weapons" accounted for less than 1% of all gun crimes and shootings. Thus, it is probably not logical to assume that any "bloodbaths" will now occur. In fact, it has now been over a year since the ban sunsetted, and still no such "spike" in AW-related crimes has occurred. The hysteria over them was just that.

Lies, it's all Lies!

"The freedom to carry assault weapons won't last long, since there is going to be high rate of crimes appearing in the U.S."

4 years later, and no such thing has happened. Hmm? (72.155.206.182 (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC))

• The AWB was not about 'carrying weapons'--it was about making, selling and owning copies or replicas of military rifles and pistols. Carrying guns is regulated under state law--in my home state it is the "going armed" statute and is limited to carrying a handgun with a state permit for self defense. Repealing the byzantine and confusing mess of federal definitions did not authorise anyone to carry assault weapons in violation of state carry laws. Naaman Brown (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh. My. Gawd.

I'd like to point out that it's more difficult, if only slightly, to manufacture a semi-auto firearm than it is to manufacture a full auto firearm. 68.77.47.101 04:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

From the article: "An example of why the mockery occurs is the definition of an assault rifle, which indicates the weapon must be fully automatic." I don't see why this is relevant, given that [the assault weapons ban] doesn't use the term "assault rifle". Legal definitons of a term (e.g. "any other weapon" or "machinegun") can and often do differ from other definitions; is it so surprising that the legal defintion of a term differs from the military definition of another term? Boris B 08:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hunting and Target Shooting

"Classification of assault weapons has proven extremely difficult since there is no functional difference between the types of firearms targeted for these bans and many very common hunting and target-shooting firearms."

How many sportsmen feel the need to use folding stocks, high capacity magazines (sporting?), flash suppressors, and grenade launchers to hunt game? This statement is unsupportable. I'm a hunter, target shooter, and a Class III FFL and I can guarantee you that none of these is even remotely needed for hunting or target shooting. Could people hunt with an AK-47? Yes, though the poor accuracy and weak stopping power make it undesirable in comparison to a real hunting rifle. Skyemoor 11:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Skyemoor's claim to be a "Class III FFL" reveals that he is a liar.

There is no such thing as a "Class III FFL" --- it's nothing more than an ignorant attempt to mislead readers here by throwing out a term --- "Class III" --- commonly used as shorthand for full-auto firearms regulated by the 1934 National Firearms Act. Nice try, Skyemoor, but you've merely revealed yourself to be another in a long line of phony fraudulent "gun owners" created by the gun-control lobby to lend some support to their empty arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.29.215 (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition to redacting the personal attack, please review Federal Firearms License, Submachine_gun#United_States, Gun_law_in_the_United_States#Acquiring_from_dealers, etc. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It all depends. For flying into the more remote areas for trophy hunts, folding stocks are often very handy for transporting backup safety guns in bush planes.

One can always make other packing choices that preclude such whims. A real hunter would pack in the back country on horseback. And any guide worth their salt always has a backup gun anyway. Skyemoor 12:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Not on a limited vacation schedule.

So they want to rush in, bag a trophy, and be back at the desk on Monday? It would be more sporting to go out and buy a trophy.

And, it is generally better to be well versed with one's own backup, say in 308 :-)  ; I am not suggesting a .223 backup, which you evidently assumed. Yaf 01:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

They should make sure there primary weapon is in good working order. Real hunters clean and inspect their guns carefully. Skyemoor 11:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Then, too, if a brown bear charges, even the normal capacity (>10) magazine of such a gun becomes suddenly much too small :-)

People hunted brown bear for over a century with black powder. Are today's hunters so poor in comparison that they can't even do as well with 10 high performance rounds out of a highly accurate weapon?? Skyemoor 12:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Not at all; hunters today just want a better safety margin, rather than risk being eaten by a brown bear in 1 out of 4 or 5 encounters like in the "good" old days with a Hawken or whatever. :-) Yaf 01:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Your references for this? Again, trying to make a case for assault weapons based on hunters with poor aim or lousy primary guns will win few debates, especially with the general public. And I'm a Class III FFL. In his letter to members of the House and Senate on 30 March 1989, William B. Ruger stated in that which has come to be known as "The Ruger Letter":

"The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete, and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining "assault rifles" and "semi-automatic rifles" is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could prohibit their possession or sale and would effectively implement these objectives." Skyemoor 11:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

For hunting at twilight, flash suppressors can even be useful for maintaining one's night vision, a few minutes after hunting is allowed during legal day definitions. It is not a good thing to be blinded for even a minute when in some parts of brown bear country.

As an astronomer, I understand the difference between dilated pupils and true rod and cone night vision. In twilight conditions, one is not in true night vision conditions, and pupils will not react as quickly to a simple muzzle flash. This is a non-argument. Skyemoor 12:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Yaf 01:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Now if you are talking about hunting at night, you would have an argument if referring to large caliber machine guns. Neither of these stipulations refers to hunters, however. Skyemoor 11:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

About the only feature you mention that I would have problems with any gun having on such a trophy hunt, under such circumstances, would be the grenade launcher :-) I don't know about other hunters, but I believe it really depends on where one goes hunting, and how much a margin of safety one wishes to maintain despite whatever nature may throw one's way. If one is hunting bunnies or squirrels in the lower 48, a seven round bolt-action 22 is likely adequate for a whole day's hunting. Such animals don't ever maul or attack you, or trample you, although I suppose Jimmy Carter might say otherwise for the bunnies :-) But, when hunting a trophy amongst brown bears, maintaining an adequate margin of safety should not depend on some arbitrary legal definitions written in Washington. A hunting gun is but a tool; magazine capacity is really not related to "sporting" limitations, but, rather, is related to maintaining adequate margins of safety when hunting amongst wilder parts of nature. Also, if a followup shot is ever required, for a clean kill, you also still have safety margin.

If 9 followup rounds are not enough, then some rookie trophy bagger should spend more time learning how to shoot halfway intelligently than to insist that they need to spray lead to be a 'modern hunter'. Skyemoor 12:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Then what you're saying is that while we have the technology to make hunters safe, we shouldn't employ it because a 'good hunter' wouldn't need that. We should probably get rid of training wheels on bikes and child safety lids on meds because a 'good child' wouldn't need that.Gholcom (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

See discussion below; I stand by my claim that one or two shots are generally adequate for all game. Nothing was ever said about spray and pray, although you seem to have an issue with maintaining what others might regard as adequate safety margins. Yaf 01:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Adequate safety margins come with knowing how to aim and fire, knowing how to care for the weapon, and knowing the characteristics and habits of the prey, all Hunting 101. It's really about the right to bear arms, instead of hunting, as mentioned here. Skyemoor 11:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC) (Removed link as petitioncruft --Tony Sidaway 11:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC) )

I don't think any hunter ever wants to use more than a round (two, max) under normal circumstances per animal. This statement ("Classification of assault weapons has proven extremely difficult since there is no functional difference between the types of firearms targeted for these bans and many very common hunting and target-shooting firearms.") is very much supportable. Yaf 04:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see any such support. Skyemoor 12:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Guess you don't hunt much, but instead are looking up at the stars :-) Nothing wrong with that, but I personally prefer to focus on safe hunting rather than gazing up at Orion the mighty hunter in the vicinity of M42  :-) Yaf 01:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm an active hunter, and a member of the Izaak Walton League, though my comments are my own. Skyemoor 11:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hunting is not the only justification for guns. I shoot in vintage and modern military matches: original military rifles and pistols, and authentic replicas, are recognised by the ATF as curios, relics and ornaments of more interest as collectors' items than as weapons. According to NIJ NSPOF survey, only about a third of guns are owned for hunting; target shooting, historical collection and self-defense are legitimate reasons to own guns. I feel that my military relic M1A1 carbine is just as legitimate as my Savage .30-30/12 gauge double hunting gun, and a military rifle stripped of its military features goes from being an interesting historical collectible to being just a weapon for shooting bullets. "Classification of assault weapons has proven extremely difficult...." New Jersey classified the Marlin Model 60 semi-auto .22 (perhaps the most common hunting and plinking rifle model ever made, over 12 million sold) as an assault weapon because the tube magazine held 18 rounds. How many active hunters would look at a Marlin M60 and think assault weapon? Naaman Brown (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Features

"the AB-10 was a legal post-ban version of the TEC-9, distinguished by the lack of barrel threading; " Did the AWB outlaw barrel threading? Skyemoor 03:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Threaded and shrouded barrels were outlawed. The AB-10 had a 3" unshrouded, unthreaded barrel. It was actually a version of the compact Tec-DC9, not the full-sized 5" barrel version. --Asams10 04:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Assault weapons" vs. post-ban weapons

I've been looking for pics of the XM-15 (for comparison with the AR-15), and found one on the Bushmaster site[2], but I'm not sure what the fair use rationale for it is, if there is one. Any help here?

Also, I think the article should highlight the functional similarities between the banned weapons and their post-ban versions (already hinted at in the article). - KingRaptor 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A comment moved from the article

This was posted by 71.60.14.53 on the article page. I've moved it to here.

(please pardon the interruption, but don't revolvers and even muzzleloaders fire one shot each time the trigger is pulled?)

KingRaptor 01:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Research paper started

I just wanted to let anyone interested know that I'll be doing a full blown research paper on this article's topic. I'm a college senior and the professor is asking for 15-25 pages. Thanks for the sources listed, they were a good starting place for me. Hopefully I'll learn lots and improve this article as time progresses. -Oatmeal batman 00:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sugarmann as originator of term

Although I've seen and heard it claimed many times that Josh Sugarmann invented the term "assault weapon", I'm not certain that's true. Around '89 or '90 when this was a big, new issue in California, I remember the gun control lobby countering this claim with ads from gun magazines from the early 1980's that used the term. Josh Sugarmann and others just picked up on the term and used it to create confusion. He didn't actually invent it. I've added a {{Fact}} template after this item in the article. If he is going to be blamed/credited for it, we ought to at least cite a source for this. Gregmg 22:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Josh Sugarmann pointed out that semi-automatic military rifles looked like machineguns so the public could be easily confused into believing the gun control law was banning machineguns and that opponents were supporting machineguns. When news media covered the ban, the voice-overs talked about banning semi-automatics while showing video of machineguns blazing away at full automatic. Sugarmann probably did not invent the term "assault weapon". He did promote the tactic of confusing the general public over the nature of the target of the Assault Weapon Ban. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Erhardt's explanation

Stop removing that perfectly sourced section of text. If the rest of the content from the article is good enough for the article, so is this one. Unless you can find a source which indicates that the explanation is (a) purely speculation, and (b) likely to be false, it stays. Saying that SIGARMS is a vested interest and thus automatically unreliable smacks of original research, is wholly POV, and likely not even accurate (how many SIG weapons were covered by this ban, anyway?) - KingRaptor 16:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim is an unsupported opinion by a company PR rep. Such material is pure propaganda and entirely unencyclopedic. If, on the other hand, your source provides something other than vague speculation, we can consider its inclusion here, but not before. Skyemoor 16:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding to what I said above: Without the statement, the paragraph strongly implies that the AWB sunset is directly responsible for the police needing to acquire heavier weapons (despite the police officers quoted in the news article never claiming as such), which is every bit as speculative POV as you claim the Erhardt statement to be. If you can find a sourced statement by the police contradicting Erdhardt's given reasons for their rearming, feel free to add it to this article.
Also: The Brady Center statement in the last paragraph is not only from a POV source with a "vested interest", but their figures blatantly contradict those of the DOJ (rather than just being "unsupported"). Why are you not removing it as well? - KingRaptor 11:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The article states clearly that the informal survey was performed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which has no vested monetary interest, and can therefore be considered to be neutral. The Brady center commissioned a report and backed it up with solid references for their statistics. Please show how their findings blatantly contradict the DOJ; indeed, they appear to be a good match. Skyemoor 16:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the IACP is a neutral, reliable source. However, the paragraph as it was structured before was not.
I quote myself, with added emphasis: the paragraph strongly implies that the AWB sunset is directly responsible for the police needing to acquire heavier weapons (despite the police officers quoted in the news article never claiming as such).

Then you are reading too much into the article that goes against your POV, which is not a problem in bias on the source.Skyemoor 02:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the source, I'm talking about the section of text here on Wikipedia. - KingRaptor 02:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in the news story claims the AWB sunset was what resulted in the increasing number of "assault weapons" found in gun searches, or the need for the police to acquire heavier weapons, it merely points out a correlation. Yet,the paragraph's position and the title of the section it heads leaves the impression that this is indeed the case. Not only is this POV, it treads dangerously close to original research.

Correlation does not prove causation. If there is a correlation, then the reader is left to determine for themselves; there are no claims made, as you yourself admitted. Skyemoor 02:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the Brady Center contradicting the DOJ, here it is, right on the article too.

• Department of Justice (unpublished 2004 report):

"the banned guns and magazines were used in up to a quarter of gun crimes prior to the ban. AWs were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the AWs used in crime are assault pistols rather than assault rifles. LCMs are used in crime much more often than and accounted for 14% to 26% of guns used in crime prior to the ban."

• Brady Center :

"since the law’s enactment ... assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime — a drop of 66% from the pre-ban rate"

1.61% is 66% lower than about 5%, which falls right in the middle of the 2% to 8% range. Look at the earlier DOJ report, which is in a similar timeframe to the Brady Center quote, and you will see strikingly similar numbers.

At the risk of sounding condescending/patronizing: 2% to 8% is not 66%. 14% is not 66%. 26% is significantly higher, but still not 66%. Even if you summed those values up (2 + 8 + 14 + 26), it would still not be 66%. How did the Brady Center arrive at this figure, anyway?

You seem to be confused about how to calculate percentages of percentages. What number do you believe 1.61% is 66% lower than?

Gaah! I was confused. I parsed the Brady statement as saying that AWs accounted for 66% of firearms used in crimes. I rescind my previous statements. - KingRaptor 02:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Regartdless, if you insist, go ahead and remove the section of text. I already violated WP:3RR inadvertently, and I really don't like the idea of making an appearance on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. - KingRaptor 00:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, and I thought I'd just let you know that I'm a Class III FFL and an active Izaak Walton member, lest you think that I'm some anti-gun zealot. Skyemoor 02:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know, and I never considered you to be a zealot of any kind. I apologize for any misunderstanding this issue has caused. - KingRaptor 02:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken, just an understandable misreading of statistical layers. We both want to facts to prevail, regardless of how each of them comes down in a policy sense. Skyemoor 15:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Having read both of the articles in question, here's my two cents. The 66% figure that the Brady Center comes up with is found by measuring the percent of AWs in gun traces before and after the ban. The two figures are 4.92% (AWs in gun traces before the ban) and 1.61% (AWs in gun traces after the ban). They use the 66% figure to bolster their case that the AWB was effective. However, as stated in the 2004 government report, gun traces are not a scientific way to measure the percent of AWs among the public, for a variety of reasons. So the figures are BS anyway. I hope this clears things up. -Oatmeal batman 09:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Gun traces are a way to determine the types of weapons involved in criminal activities; those held by collectors are not considered to be in the same category of owner, so a vague 'public' figure would have little meaning. Skyemoor 15:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• ATF trace data may indicate traces of stolen weapons, rather than weapons used in crimes. Since police departments are most likely to report weapons stolen, it is not surprising that the ATF trace reports I have seen commonly list police models by Ruger, Colt or Smith&Wesson. And the models of guns used by criminals is about as meaningful as the models of automobiles used by criminals, and selective bans based on such data make little sense.Naaman Brown (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This is unreferenced material. In order to make changes to the article, provide material from sources that meet WP:RS. --Skyemoor (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Expiration of Ban

• Contrary to some alarmist warnings, the expiration of the ban has not seen any noticable increase in crime in general. This may be due to the fact that the weapons addressed by the ban had been rarely used by criminals, so any ban on them had no effect on crime in any event.

This paragraph seems to violate NPOV by using fairly charged words like 'alarmist' and using an editorial as a source for neutral information. --Wgbc2032 23:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Alarmist" is used as an adjective. There is also the word "crime", which some might feel is also a violation of NPOV. However, it is a cited newspaper and does present valid information despite having words such as "alarmist" and "crime". Have restored citation. Yaf 03:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's also an editorial, and a dated one at that. Because of this, I question it's value. The word alarmist implies a panicky, over-the-top phobia and although you and the Times writer may feel that way about the AWB, others don't and we cannot enforce our opinions on something that is heatedly debated and disputed.

I could be crossing a line here, but I think the paragraph takes on an offensive quality in light of the Virginia Tech massacre. While of course events like this are extremely rare, this statement seems defiant and innapropriate in the face of this, considering the killer used clips that would have been illeagal under AWB. I don't want to turn this into a political debate, but I do think this is potentially relevant. Due to the wording of the paragragh I am going to continue deleting it unless it's made neutral. --Wgbc2032 05:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Wgbc2032. --Skyemoor 16:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree strongly, though this is not the place for such a talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.254.135 (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and Weasel Words, continued.

This article needs a new peer review for NPOV and sourcing badly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.254.41.28 (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC). Bold text

Why are there photos of full-auto rifles in this article?

Anyone? Such weapons are not relevant in discussion of the AWB. KyuzoGator 14:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Have attempted to remove these misleading photos many times, but they keep getting reinserted. Yaf 15:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The first picture is of the Sturmgewehr 44 is to show what early assault rifles looked like. The genesis of the name had mentioned the Sturmgewehr 44, though it seems someone deleted it. The AK underfolder is there to show what some of the weapons look like. There is no distinquishing features between this picture and that of the semi-auto-only model, so I don't see why there is any complaint over this. The picture of the KG-99 is there because it is typical of the kind of assault weapon covered by the ban. There is nothing misleading about these pictures, as weapons with the same appearance can be purchased at one of my favorite shopping stops, Centerfire Systems. The pictures help to illustrate many of the features that were covered by the AWB. --Skyemoor 16:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If you want to show pictures of weapons covered by this piece of legislation, you should do so. Showing photos of pictures that "resemble" those covered by the ban is irrelevant and misleading. As for the picture of the "early assault rifle," it is important to note that "assault rifle" is an accepted technical term which refers to the mechanical operation of the weapon, whereas "assault weapon" is a concocted term that only refers to features that are external to the actual mechanical operation. There is no correlation between an "assault rifle" and an "assault weapon" beyond what they look like. KyuzoGator 16:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not the pictures, per se, rather, it's the confusion the pictures put into lay readers' minds that associates full auto capabilities labeled in the pictures with assault weapons. It's bad enough that the weapons look the same; however, to the average man on the street's way of looking at this, an assault weapon is considered (erroneously) to be a full-auto weapon. Having these pictures, with their full auto assault rifle labels in an article on assault weapons just propagates the confusion for a political agenda that is very POV. Can we somehow address this? Yaf 17:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

To me, it's akin to having an article about alcohol prohibition, and showing vials of crack cocaine. The crack has nothing to do with the ban on alcohol. KyuzoGator 17:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Dumb analogy. KyuzoGator 14:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

To KyuzoGator: There is no correlation between an "assault rifle" and an "assault weapon" beyond what they look like. Not true; the top two weapons pictured have a fully- and semi-automatic mode. In publicly available versions, the only difference is the fully-auto mode is disabled. There is nothing erroneous about the similarities in appearances between these weapons and assault weapons; please follow the link I provided to see for yourself.

To Yaf: Again, please follow the link to see that there is nothing confusing about these pictures. And the caption quite clearly states, "A fully automatic AK-47 assault rifle variant covered by other legislation, similar in configuration to many AK-47 semi-automatic rifles. Note the folding stock, pistol-grip, and large capacity magazine." Since this is fully explained, what possible confusion is there? --Skyemoor 17:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That is like showing a bottle of Budweiser to illustrate an article on non-alcoholic beer. The pictures should be removed and replaced with something relevant. - O^O 04:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That is like showing a bottle of Budweiser to illustrate an article on non-alcoholic beer. This simile fails on False analogy; both types of guns kill, they look the same, one just has the full-auto mode disabled. The appearances won't fool anyone; if you don't believe me, just look at this link. --Skyemoor 19:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

How "equally killable" the guns are has nothing to do with with whether their images are appropriate in an article about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which only dealt with semi-automatic weapons. It doesn't matter if they look "similar" or "nearly identical". Creating any false correlation between the AWB and full-auto machine guns is very POV. If an article is about oranges, you don't post a picture of a tangerine and say, "this is a fruit that looks a lot like an orange." This article should be no different. KyuzoGator 14:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have now replaced the picture of the fully automatic AK-47 with a picture of a semi-auto AK-47. --Skyemoor 09:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should try to reduce, rather than contribute to, the confusion on this issue. To me, this means showing pictures of the kinds of weapons covered by the ban. However, I would not object to a picture of a full-auto rifle, as long as it was clearly labelled with something like, "Despite the cosmetic similiarities, fully automatic rifles such as this are covered by the National Firearms Act, not the assault weapons ban." Friday (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, my vote is to definitely not have images of full-auto weapons. They aren't relevant to the content of the article. KyuzoGator 14:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Definition of assault weapon section

Have added an NPOV tagline to this section, for it is a mess. As written, this section intermixes assault rifle with assault weapon terminology, and semi-automatic with full-automatic terminology in such a confusing way as to confuse lay people reading the article into believing (erroneously) that assault weapons are full auto (they are not). This section needs to be re-written to eliminate this confusion for lay readers. Showing a photo of a full-auto assault rifle in an article on assault weapons simply increases this confusion for lay readers. Photos in this article should be restricted to those actually related to assault weapons, not to include photos showing other historical weapons that are not assault weapons and which serve only to confuse lay readers into believing that assault weapons are somehow "machine guns" (they are not). Yaf 07:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:BB, have attempted to address these concerns with a re-write of article to make it more accessible to general readers that are not familiar with the technical terminology. Have removed NPOV tagline upon completion of re-write. Have retained the technical tagline for now, as there are still accessibility issues with the article. Yaf 08:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reintroduction

The following text was removed as no support for it was provided, and it seemed highly POV;

It would also have banned nearly all sporting firearms based on semi-automatic actions, including nearly all common hunting rifles and shotguns.

This is much too strong; even most SKSs would not be banned by this legislation, much less most sporting firearms. Remember, detachable magazines are not part of the count. What did you have in mind? --Skyemoor 09:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, particularly since there's not really a definition of what a "sporting firearm" is. KyuzoGator 14:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The new additions to this section have violated WP:OR and have been trimmed accordingly. What we have to understand is that a law enforcement agency is one who's mission is to enforce the law. Including any such department or agency that happens to have persons with law enforcement is not the same thing. --Skyemoor 13:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Glock 19

The photo of a Glock 19 was moved to the appropriate section, it is an example of more people being killed (hit) by weapons of a type banned as assault weapons. It has a 15 round magazine which was banned by the 1994 law and by the proposed law. To quote from that section "attacks with semiautomatics – including AWs and other semiautomatics equipped with large capacity magazines – result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more wounds inflicted per victim than do attacks with other firearms". 199.125.109.22 22:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And yet the average shooting totals only 3.5 shots fired...--LWF 22:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So ban all handguns then. That is not the issue in this article. The Virgina Tech shooter fired what 174 rounds, including 9 15 round magazines from the Glock 19. To quote from the Glock 19 article: "Standard magazine capacity is 15 rounds of 9 x 19 mm ammunition." There are a lot of definitions of what an assault weapon is, clearly any weapon with a removable magazine holding 3 or more bullets should constitute an assault weapon, among other definitions. Allowing 10 rounds is an absurdly high number. 199.125.109.125 23:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum for editorializing and promoting political views. If you do not have any suggestions to improve the article please do not post comments in this page.--LWF 03:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Add a photo of the Glock 19 as an example of a weapon used. How hard is that to do? You have a better photo? Use it. A picture is worth a thousand words. And as to editorializing, well the whole article is badly in need of a rewrite. All it is is editorializing, other than for a few sentences. 199.125.109.125 20:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Added back. Skyemoor 02:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is the line, "Used with the larger 15 round magazine in the Virginia Tech massacre" at the end of the photo of the Glock 19? It's irrelevant to the article and potentially misleading; there is no way to claim or prove that the assault weapon ban would have prevented the use of a 15 round magazine, or that the assault weapon ban could have prevented the crime. I am removing the reference.--SunWuKong 04:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Barring a questionable background check the gun was legally purchased. Under the assault weapons ban it would only have been sold with a 10 round magazine, which possibly would have saved 2 or 3 students lives. The reason for the wording is that the gun itself was legal if used with a smaller magazine. In order to prevent the crime, you would have to ban all handguns. The point of the weapons ban is that you can do more damage with a larger magazine, and great damage indeed was done. It's all about the amount of damage done, not about preventing crime. 199.125.109.111 01:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a specious argument since there is no proof that the number of shots fired in a criminal attack is limited by the capacity of a magazine. The VA Tech shooter had virtually unlimited time and opportunity to change magazines, and it would have made no difference if he had 10-round magazines. He had more than one gun and he did not stop shooting because one magazine ran dry. It is pure speculation--and wishful thinking--to state that "a 10 round magazine ... possibly would have saved 2 or 3 students lives." --Ana Nim 15:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Under "Compliance and avoidance" We should ....

We Should Provide A Picture Of A Banned Pre-Ban AK-47 & A Picture Of A Post Ban AK-47 same goes with an AR-15 To Demonstrate The Assualt Weapons Ban —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChesterTheWorm (talk • contribs) 09:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Shoot from the hip

The article talks about shooting from the hip, which is possible with any gun, an advised against with every gun. the only case where someone would want to shoot from the hip, rather than from the shoulder is in a quick draw situation. People watch too many movies. 67.173.1.71 (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The pistol grip allows for this; a standard rifle grip would make this difficult (i.e. SKS) or near impossible with larger calibers. At Heritage High School, for example, TJ was shooting from the hip.--Skyemoor (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"shooting from the hip" is a buzz statement used by gun grabbers to evoke emotion. A pistol grip DOES NOT ALLOW for firing from the hip. In fact, it is easier with a straight stock, or "sport stock" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Animematt (talk • contribs) 14:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There are many people who disagree with you, even police officers that use them. --Skyemoor (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be easier to shoot accurately from the hip, but you can't really aim from the hip. If someone was shooting at me, I would rather have them shoot from the hip. Shooting from the hip means you can't use sights, and have less control over recoil. I know in older action movies, someone will rapid fire from the hip or stomach with great accuracy, but that is wrong. Now in close range against unarmed opponents without body armor it doesn't matter much, although, well aimed head shots will still be more deadly. 67.173.1.71 (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, though such a discussion does not focus on the article content. --Skyemoor (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think some people here play too many video games. First of all, having a gun with a pistol grip or a rifle grip is a matter of personal preference, according to what is comfortable to the individual shooter. It has just about zero effect on accuracy or any other aspect of the weapon's performance. Second, shooting from the hip is a silly excuse for shooting technique, as it makes it impossible to use the sights and achieve any signifiant level of accuracy. In spree killings where the shooters chose to spray fire from the hip, they've often sprayed hundreds of rounds and only hit a few people, even in crowded places at short range. If it was such a deadly technique, it would be taught to members of the armed forces, but it's not. And third, don't use police to make an argument from authority. Most police never fire their weapons except at the gun range like the rest of us. They're not trained or equipped to trade fire with dangerous spree killers. That's what SWAT is for. Shreditor (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

First, you need to avoid personal attacks: I don't play video games. In spree killings where the shooters chose to spray fire from the hip, they've often sprayed hundreds of rounds and only hit a few people, even in crowded places at short range. Do you have any references for this? --Skyemoor (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion is getting a bit off track. The statement made in the article is "Supporters pointed to the ability to fire a large capacity magazine without the need to reload as frequently; the ability to fire from the hip with a pistol grip..." The article does not (and should not) imply or state that pistol grips allow a firearm to be "shot from the hip" or that a pistol grip enables more accurate "firing from the hip." The statement does need to be cited, though. And it may need to be moved to a different section of the article since it doesn't really have much to do with "Compliance and Avoidance." --Hamitr (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Needed: List of weapons affected by the law

If there already is such a list, it should be linked.
~ender 2008-11-06 20:31:PM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.27.196 (talk)

Compliance and avoidance section thinning

I moved these paragraphs out of the article because they don't really have anything to do with "Compliance and avoidance." I'm sure that some parts might be applicable to other sections of the article; however, I think we should avoid a "Supporters and detractors" section. --Hamitr (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Supporters pointed to the ability to fire a large capacity magazine without the need to reload as frequently; the ability to fire from the hip with a pistol grip; and greatly reduced chances for detection when using a silencer in the perpetration of a crime (silencers were already regulated by federal law prior to the AWB); and felt that the final wording of the bill watered down the legislation making the ban much less effective. Opponents claimed that the features did not increase the likelihood of criminal use or function, and pointed out that the features banned had little record of impact in past criminal use.

Critics also noted that many of the defining features included in the ban did not necessarily make a weapon more dangerous or more desirable to a common criminal (for example, bayonet lugs and barrel shrouds.) A common comparison drawn was between the M16/AR-15, which was banned, and the Ruger Mini-14, which (in most versions) was not. Both weapons fire the same cartridge with similar ballistics, both can accept high-capacity magazines, and they are of similar size and weight. Thus, critics said, one could logically conclude that they were equally lethal weapons in the hands of a criminal and that the differences between them had no bearing on the weapons' respective danger to society. Detractors say that the banned weapons were essentially targeted for falling under an arbitrary definition of "military appearance" and not according to function, lethality, or actual threat to public safety.

Urban policy agenda of President-elect Obama

The stated goal was "making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets." 'Assault weapons' -- military curios and relics -- are usually found in the racks of collectors or on target ranges, not hanging around on street corners like stereotypical JDs. Military type firearms make up about 10% of the guns in circulation but less than 2% of guns used in crime. They are less likely to be used by street criminals due to their size and complexity. What is overlooked in this is the observation of gun control advocate Robert Sherill a quarter century ago: guns used in crime represent 1 of 400 guns; this implies that restriction on legal manufacture, sale, purchase and ownership of guns impacts the lawabiding far more than it impacts the criminal. Yet gun control rhetoric speaks as though the gun owner, not the gun criminal, deserves the iron heel of the state. Just as the common Marlin Model 60 .22 rifle was transformed into an assault weapon by the New Jersey AWB, gun control politics attempts to transform lawabiding gun owners into gun criminals by simple redefinition.Naaman Brown (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You must still follow WP:RS. --Skyemoor (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I try to follow 'reliable source' policy on edits to articles themselves; I view the Talk Pages as the proper venue for questions, surmise, speculation or even opinions on articles. I often post matters of fact on the talk pages until I find a citable reliable source. I leave opinions on the Talk Pages because I presumed that was what Talk was about. When I finsh this post I intend to revisit the talk page guidelines. By the way, Robert Sherrill, The Saturday Night Special (1973) is treated as a reliable source by both sides of the gun debate.Naaman Brown (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Effect on crime

Cited as Citation Needed: ""During the 1990s the Militia movement made the ban on Assault Weapons a major focus of the movement. Feeling the ban had gone too far and crossed constitutional lines the Assault Weapon ban became a major rallying cry and recruitment tool for the Militia Movement. Although members of such groups were rarely associated with crime the growth of these and related organizations was viewed by many as an undesirable side-effect of the ban that could lead to crime."" This appears to be an abstract of the Armed & Dangerous: Militias Take Aim at the Federal Government, Anti-Defamation League Fact Finding Report, 1994 which can be found archived at http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/adl/armed-and-dangerous/introduction.html Naaman Brown (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This source does not meet the qualifications identified in WP:RS. Please see that WP guideline to gain a greater understanding about the reliability of sources eligible for inclusion into WP articles. --Skyemoor (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The Anti-Defamation League Armed and Dangerous 1994 report was used as a source in an annual report on the militias by BATF. I was not vouching for the accuracy of the statements, just suggesting in Talk a possible source, open to further research. Naaman Brown (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You can quote the BATF Report, and the ADL document if properly cited and attributed. --Skyemoor (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Support for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act legislation

Does anyone else think that this section is a disaster? Do we really need to list every senator and their vote? I think a single-sentence summary with a link to the voting record is sufficient.

And what is the reason for the The above information is for the entire "Crime Bill" the data on actual weapon ban in the bill is much more partisan. section? --Hamitr (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. WP is not a list. The entire section "Support for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act legislation" should be deleted. Yaf (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

At least let's note that only 5 senators voted "No". --Phil1988 (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

While reading the whole discussion page, I noticed that that list was added after a discussion on whether the ban was voted in by Republicans or Democrats. SInce it was voted by both, I also think the article can do without this list. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed some wording.

On the section called effects on crime where it says: "A 1999 preliminary study commissioned by the Department of Justice on the Assault Weapons Ban found that gun murders dropped 11% from 1994 to 1995," I changed the part "gun murders" to "firearm related murders" ChesterTheWorm (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)ChesterTheWorm

Assault weapons bans in other states

any consideration to pointing out the fact that the new jersey AWB was overturned in court as unconstitutional for vagueness and due process in 1996?

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_multi=STL2%7C&p_product=STLNP&p_theme=stlnp&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=assault%20weapon%20AND%20date%282/29/1996%20to%202/29/1996%29&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=2/29/1996%20to%202/29/1996%29&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=%28assault%20weapon%29&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no

article #1 on that page, you are required to pay to read the full article how ever.

however the state did not appeal, they felt that it was better to allow the ban to be overturned in a single county than to challenge it and possibly have the judgment affirmed in a higher court and have the ban overturned across the entire state. indy_muaddib (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 is in no way notable enough to merit its own article (it's just one of many failed bills that never even got voted on), so any content deemed worth saving ought to be merged into this article. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

About the only thing I could see worth merging would be just stating it was another failed attempt at passing this type of legislation. That's about it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

Another user removed part of a sentence in the Expiration and effect on crime section of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban article. The user wrote, "The 'note' was part of a summary not prepared by the research team, which makes no comparable study within the body of the study."

However, the summary and it's note were added by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention itself and, as an official U.S. government agency and the publisher of First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws, the CDC's summary is germane.

Furthermore, the penultimate paragraph in the Methods section of the report (PDF version referenced above and online version) refers to the following footnote:

At the June 2002 meeting of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, new terminology was adopted to reflect the findings of the Task Force. Instead of being referred to as "strongly recommended" and "recommended," such interventions are now referred to as "recommended (strong evidence of effectiveness)" and "recommended (sufficient evidence of effectiveness)," respectively. Similarly, the finding previously referred to as "insufficient evidence" is now more fully stated: "insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness." These changes were made to improve the clarity and the intent of the findings.

And in fact, those terms do appear in the body of the report, as the footnote indicate. Lightbreather (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This entire addition is original research from primary sources and as such should not be included. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What Capitalismojo said. GregJackP Boomer! 20:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, could you please specify what you mean by "this entire addition"? Lightbreather (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What I meant is that wikipedia has three core policies. One is "No Original Research". WP:NOR This policy directs editor to avoid primary sources. A report by a federal task force directed by (and published by) the CDC is a primary source document. This material could remain if a ref from a reliable secondary source were available, as it stands policy would constrain this material's use. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. "Original research" on Wikipedia means the WP editor's own research or analysis, it doesn't mean a primary source. WP:NOR says, "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." WP:WPNOTRS says, "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." Thus it's generally acceptable to include primary sources, as long as the WP editor does not draw their own conclusions from it. Notes added by the publisher of a study are part of a published work, and therefore they are part of the primary source — they're not original research. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 10:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear from the wording at WP:WPNOTRS that primary sources are not "generally acceptable" - that's precisely what they mean when they qualify with "difficult to use appropriately", "use[d] with caution", and '"secondary sources [...] are preferred". They may be acceptable in limited circumstances, but generally they are not. They are generally to be avoided, based on a strict reading. Anastrophe (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't normally believe in topic bans, but in someone's case I'm willing to make an exception.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

While the CDC may havee been in effect the publisher of the study, the authors were in fact experts specifically chosen to represent points of view from many sources including the National Institute of Health, the U.S. Justice Department and Columbia University. The CDC's role then was NOT as the author of the report but rather in the nature of that of a publisher. The fact that the publisher of a work happens to disagree with or wishes to diminish the significance of the findings of an independent commission's work is interesting but it is nothing more than commentary about the findings made. Just as we do not include the viewpoint of Random House with regard to the contents of a book it publishes, so we should not include what amounts to editorializing by the publisher. The comment should remain omitted.QuintBy (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I added a statement from the body of the Task Force report, since there is not agreement about the notes that were published with the reports. Lightbreather (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI There are issues with CDC gun research. Here is a Forbes piece in February year about CDC gun research. [3] Capitalismojo (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The specific citation at the center of this discussion has been taken care of, but the source URL at the center of this discussion links to an HTML page. There is a disclaimer at the bottom of that page that says:

"All MMWR HTML versions of articles are electronic conversions from ASCII text into HTML. This conversion may have resulted in character translation or format errors in the HTML version. Users should not rely on this HTML document, but are referred to the electronic PDF version and/or the original MMWR paper copy for the official text, figures, and tables."

Therefore, I am replacing the links (more than one) in the article to the recommended PDF file.

FWIW, when you go read that PDF a box on the bottom of page two says:

"Points of view expressed in these reports are those of the preparers and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Justice, or the U.S. Department of Justice."

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Sentence fragment was removed with consensus originally. User:Lightbreather since replaced the term unilaterally and started discussion thereafter. Again a consensus has been reached to remove the sentence fragment (2nd time now) I have done so. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Sue Rangell, you say “Sentence fragment was removed with consensus originally,” but it was removed by user QuintBy, who summarized the deletion by saying: “The ‘note’ was part of a summary not prepared by the research team, which makes no comparable study within the body of the study.” After that, I cited from “within the body of the study,” as the discussion above indicates. In fact, it is the same source used in the first part of the sentence, and it improves the article by editing for WP:NPOV. Therefore, I am restoring the quote. Also, please see your talk page. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to get into an edit war with you. I won't revert your edit. But you are ignoring the consensus of everyone who has commented above. You can't do that. Somebody will eventually read this and remove the quote (AGAIN) anyway. This is a collaborative process, we follow consensus. I strongly implore you to revert your own edit before somebody finally accuses you of acting in bad faith. I am not ready to cross that line yet, as I am hoping against hope that you are simply new to editing as you claim. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus in the comments to ignore, and at any rate, once I cited the body of the report rather than the summary, there was no further discussion and the contested quote was allowed to stand. Also, would you please remove your "edit war" remark and your comments about my intentions? I am here in good faith to try to improve this article. Lightbreather (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Mike, it appears that you have now deleted the quote being discussed here. It was originally contested because of its location (the summary) of the cited source. I then changed the quote/citation to the body of the report, which is the same source cited for the first part of the sentence. Please return the quote to the sentence. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for Mike to do anything. The consensus is to remove the sentence fragment. You keep replacing it. It makes no difference if you add a citation. There are many things that could be added to the article simply because it has a citation. I can find many citations to prove that the sky appears blue, but that doesn't mean that it gets to go into the article. The only editor that wants the sentence fragment is YOU, Lightbreather. This is a group process and the consensus is to leave the sentence fragment out of the article. Please respect the consensus. Several editors have attempted to reason with you, but I am beginning to think that the only solution may be a topic ban. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I concur. This is past the IDHT point and becoming disruptive. GregJackP Boomer! 05:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

My objective when I started this discussion was to restore a quote representing a significant viewpoint. When QuintBy deleted it, it had had been in the article since December 21 (over seven months) by implicit consensus. On Aug. 15, when the source was changed from the summary to the body of the cited report, the quote was restored and the other editors stopped responding to the discussion. Two days ago (Sep. 1) it was deleted it again. If a new consensus has been reached since Aug. 15, what is it based on? I see no discussion, and objection to using the summary section of the report has been addressed.

Also, would those of you accusing me of acting in bad faith and threatening me with action please stop? It’s making me feel anxious. Lightbreather (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Please explain in detail how this one sentence fragment - which is actually a generic statement that applies to any research - represents a "significant viewpoint". The report could be about the results of research on effects of a drug on mice, and if the investigators were unable to find evidence to support the aim of the research, then they also would be as likely to point out that insufficient evidence does not mean evidence of a lack of effect; it only means there wasn't adequate evidence. This is not a "significant viewpoint", it's basic high school science conflated with meaning it does not actually have.Anastrophe (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

“… it's basic high school science conflated with meaning it does not actually have.” Anastrophe, I’m not presenting it as a significant viewpoint – the source (Task Force) is. The source made a point of qualifying the first part of the statement (which is included in the article) with the second part (which was in the article for months, with the summary "Added rest of CDC quote for clarity," before another editor deleted it). Wikipedia editors are not supposed to make assumptions about WP readers’ level of education. If the source believed the statement was significant, it’s not our place to decide otherwise. The achieving neutrality guideline makes that pretty clear. (A paragraph I wish I'd read - as a newbie WP editor - before the "cosmetic" discussion.)

I am restoring the quote again, and I hope we editors can focus on some of the other open discussions now. Lightbreather (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

That you infer something from what I've written does not mean that I implied it, nor that I am responsible for your inferral, which is mistaken. I said nothing about your education, I was speaking specifically to the meaning of their caveat. The source does not present it as a "significant viewpoint", they present it as a caveat, and one that applies to virtually all empirical investigation. I repeat that you are conflating a basic principle of scientific inquiry with being a "viewpoint". There is no characteristic of their caveat that represent a "significant viewpoint" as described in the Undue Weight policy. Just because a source says something does not automatically make that statement a significant viewpoint, yet that appears to be what you are suggesting with the comment "If the source believed the statement was significant, it’s not our place to decide otherwise." -- actually it is our place to decide if a viewpoint is significant - if it is even a viewpoint at all. I'm afraid that you are misreading the Undue Weight policy. Sources do not determine significant viewpoints, a preponderance of sources in agreement determine whether a viewpoint is significant. Here's the relevant portion of the first sentence of representing a significant viewpoint for further clarity: in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". You are claiming that a single caveat - one which applies to any scientific inquiry - is significant. It is not. Anastrophe (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that you commented on my education. A caveat is "an explanation to prevent misinterpretation," and the source believes this caveat might be necessary for some of its readers. If what it was explaining was assumed to be understood by anyone who might read the article, it would not have been included. Wikipedia tells us to provide context for the reader. That our readers "have different backgrounds, education and opinions" and are here to learn.

I would also like to remind you - and others who are engaged with me on this page - that although this past month has been a great learning experience for me, I still consider myself a WP newbie when it comes to editing. I just read the please don't bite the newcomers page, and I have to say I've seen little of the kindness and patience here that article promotes. "If you feel that you must say something to a newcomer about a mistake, please do so in a constructive and respectful manner. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on the user's talk page to let them know that they are welcome here, and present your corrections calmly and as a peer. If possible, point out things that they've done correctly or well."

I've received zero welcoming greetings on my talk page. Here, I've been accused of "scrubbing," "beating a dead horse," offering a "nonsensical reading," posting "a joke of a list," "whitewashing" - of not-hearing, disrupting, even gaming! No-one has acknowledged anything I've done right. I've fixed links, removed weasel words (which were put back - twice!), corrected capitalization errors. The two or three times I let my frustration effect my comments, I apologized or struck them out. I've even thanked a few people for some of their edits/help.

Short of quitting altogether, I am participating here the way Wikipedia and some of you have advised. Please assume good faith and stop asking me, effectively, to not participate. Lightbreather (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted per the consensus on the talk page. Please do not restore this to the article. You have been advised by a number of different editors to leave it out, I would strongly advise that you heed this advice. GregJackP Boomer! 02:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, regarding running into a rough time, while Wikipedia has the flaw of sometimes being a rough place, your choice of how to start (edits generally towards one POV, on an article which is on a contentious topic) turn the "sometimes" into "certainty". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, North8000. The very few edits I did in the past (six years ago) were on uncontentious pages. I expected there would be some here who would be nicer than others. That's the way life is. But I'd hoped there'd be a few who welcomed me. I actually made several neutral edits and fixed some links for the pro-gun side. I don't think anyone commented on those. IMO the article is currently not NPOV, and that effects its (and Wikipedia's) credibility. Lightbreather (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thus far you have effectively refused to identify specifically what POV issues you see, by dodging every pointed question you've been asked about what you are trying to fix, specifically. We don't care if you are pro-gun-rights or pro-gun-control, but if you won't identify the specific problem or POV you are trying to correct (see the entire WP:CONTENTFORKING and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC thread), it comes across very much as evasiveness and tendentious editing. You've ignored the point I made just above that your interpretation of Undue Weight is not supported by the very policy you claim is at issue - but simply moved on to a different policy. You've chosen to edit only one article (with but one exception that I can see) since becoming (re) active on WP in August. And that one article is, as has been repeatedly pointed out, on a polarizing, contentious issue. You made the choice to dive in on this article alone, to edit boldly, and then to confront editors with claims and edits contrary to consensus and sources. Your peers just want to improve the article, and not be lectured by a self-proclaimed newbie editor that we're all wrong on every little policy you can ferret out. Welcome to Wikipedia. Blunt is not uncivil. Have you considered editing some other articles? Most new editors dip their toes in the water. If the water's too hot (or cold, as your interpretation may be) - try observing more for a while. Or try editing Random articles, which is a great way to begin participating and engaging with editors where the topic is less likely to be incendiary. You feel set-upon by your fellow editors. I'm sorry you feel that way, but you made the choice to dive into the deep end.Anastrophe (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

@Lightbreather. I haven't seen any of the editors here be rude to you, to the contrary, most have been civil and taken time to explain things. That doesn't mean, however, that we won't be blunt. Like Anastrophe, I do not see what POV issue you are trying to fix, and you have not explained that here. In addition, numerous editors have asked you not to re-add material against consensus, yet you continue to do that. If you were an experienced editor, I would have already filed an ANI on this. I can second the suggestion of Anastrophe - there are less contentious areas to learn in. GregJackP Boomer! 16:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

GregJackP, less than five hours ago I gave at least eight examples of how I've been treated less than civilly, but I am moving this discussion to user talk pages, since it's no longer about the topic, but me. Lightbreather (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, I think it is safe to say that people here have bent over backward trying to reach out to you. I was a supporter of the ban, along with you, and I have been hoping that you can be prevented from the trouble that is just on your horizon. Unfortunately there appears to be some sort of disconnect when it comes to this. If you are new to Wikipedia as you claim, I urge you to wet your beak on a topic that is less explosive. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has ceased to be about the topic, but about how a few of you feel about my participation here. I will address you individually on your user talk pages. Lightbreather (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not respond on my talk page. Respond here or on your own. You are the one who breached the subject. We simply responded. I have said all I have to say on the matter, there is no need to spill this drama over onto my, (or anyone's) talk pages, but feel free to carry it to your own. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

@Sue_Rangell. I was glad to honor your request until you edited my comments on an open discussion here between myself and another editor - and then closed the discussion. I will be happy to not post on your talk page again, but please stop using WP:REVTALK for personal attacks and remarks, (like "please do this yourself in the future," "no drama please," and "please change them back"), and please stop personalizing at me on this talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I did not edit your comments. I replaced your original proposal and struck it out so that people can see that you made a change. This is standard proceedure on Wikipedia. It was not an attack, or an attempt to change anything that you posted. This is done routinely because people can become confused if you simply delete the old comment. Thanx. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I accidentally hit Save page instead of Show preview. I finished editing it and posted it less than 10 seconds after I first hit save - and before anyone else had commented on it. If I changed it after a comment, I would have used struck-through text. WP:REDACT allows this, and also says: "Please do not apply any such changes to other editors' comments without permission." Would you please remove it? The way it's replaced and struck it makes it look like it had been there long enough for someone to read before I finished it. Lightbreather (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)