Misplaced Pages

Talk:Assault weapons legislation in the United States

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lightbreather (talk | contribs) at 01:28, 17 May 2014 (→Move/Rename compromise: notice of notices). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:28, 17 May 2014 by Lightbreather (talk | contribs) (→Move/Rename compromise: notice of notices)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Assault weapons legislation in the United States article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLaw
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited States
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFirearms
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sources

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

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

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Coatrack?

This article was created and filled with content only about the United States, while claiming to be about worldwide bans. The article was populated with only US-centric information on the day it was created, with essentially zero further development of the worldwide component since then. This strikes me as a Coatracking. It has NO coverage that is not found in the existing US-specific ban articles, thus it merely repeats US specific information found more fully elsewhere in wikipedia, without adding a single scintilla of new information. Coatrack. Anastrophe (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it was just about U.S. assault weapons bans (active, expired, and proposed) until about Aptil 14, when another editor added a U.K. section with no content. Rather than war with that editor, I changed the lead. Honestly, although other countries have banned or otherwise regulated firearms, I know of no other country that referred/refers to their actions as assault weapons bans (though perhaps when referring to U.S. actions/proposals, since the U.S. does). Do you? Lightbreather (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
If that is the case, then there is simply no need for this article. Assault weapons ban should be a disambig to the two extant articles, Federal assault weapons ban, and the failed 2013 ban attempt. Anastrophe (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that is one option. Another is to develop the state, county, and municipal sections of this article so that readers who want to learn about AWBs can read about them here, and not have to dig through other articles - as they do now. There could be other options, too. Maybe individual articles re the AWBs passed in Connecticut, Maryland, New York, etc. - like the California AWB of 1989. Honestly, until very recently, if you Googled or did a Misplaced Pages search on "assault weapons ban," one might get the impression that the only one there ever was was the federal one that expired in 2004. Lightbreather (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Until there's actual content in place that's not a duplicate of the two extant articles, I'd say disambig is the way to go. For that matter, since this is an umbrella title, it could stay a disambig and merely also point to articles on state bans, etc. Anastrophe (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I still have yet to see any content in this article that is unique to this article. All information in it is covered in other articles. That means that it should instead by a disambig page, otherwise, it's a WP:Coatrack. Can we agree to change this into a disambig? Anastrophe (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
This article is very poorly written. It is just a list of antigun talking points and the reader leaves with no idea of what the point of the article is supposed to be, let alone an explanation of what an assault weapon ban is.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Assault weapons ban - please stop

Sue, re this recent edit on the "Assault weapons ban" article.

The edit summary says, "Makes more sense now. And is in line with Misplaced Pages policies," but what it appears to be is a mass reversion of everything I did after Mike S. 1. added some material to it yesterday and 2. removed the hatnote or whatever that's called. (Mass reversion except for date= that you change to year= and month= - That was new and I have no problem with it.)

So, you wiped out everything I wrote, and misrepresented what you did in your edit summary.

Notice that I did not just revert what Mike added. I studied it carefully and edited it. He and I had a good conversation today - no hard feelings. Why do you insist on following me around and reverting my edits? What you've reverted that article to is not factual; it misrepresents what the source says.

Please, please stop. And please leave me alone - no more WP:HOUNDING, please! --Lightbreather (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that:

leaving behind the Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#State actions summary section.

Since the assault weapons bans in these states pre-date the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the content in the related "Gun control after" article sections can easily be explained in the context of "Assault weapons ban" article, and the "Assault weapons ban" article is of a reasonable size that the merging of "Gun control after" will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Also, god forbid, if another mass shooting sets off another national debate about assault weapons bans, we won't need to start another "Gun control after..." article.

Until recently, if a reader did a Misplaced Pages search on the term "assault weapons ban" he/she might get the impression that the only one that ever existed was the federal ban of 1994-2004. That reader would have to dig and click through to numerous articles to try to find info about state bans - and much of that in tabular format. The Assault weapons ban article lets the reader read about the larger topic in one place, without all that digging around. This is why people go to encyclopedia's in the first place. Lightbreather (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. (proposer) For reasons given when proposal/discussion was started. Lightbreather (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This is precisely what a disambiguation page is for. As it stands, this article is completely unencyclopedic: it claims to be about assault weapons ban, but instead is merely a fluffed up list - it does not in any way describe what an assault weapon ban is. Anastrophe (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
"As it stands...": The article is start-class and still being actively developed. It has the same potential to be an article specifically about a certain kind of gun law as the articles Concealed carry in the United States and Open carry in the United States. By my count, not one of the 19 sources already cited in this start-class article are duplicated in:
  • Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
  • Gun laws in the United States by state
  • Gun laws in Connecticut
  • Gun laws in Hawaii
  • Gun laws in Maryland
  • Gun laws in Massachusetts
  • Gun laws in New Jersey
  • Gun laws in New York
Though two are used in Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, and nine are used in the Federal AWB article. Lightbreather (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Different references do not a unique article make. The purpose of an encyclopedia article on assault weapon bans should be to explain what the subject of the article is. Aside from the tautologous first sentence of the article, it does not in any way explain what an assault weapon ban it, it merely iterates through existing bans, which are all covered in other articles. There is no benefit to the reader in duplicating content; it is encyclopedic to direct the reader to the real articles. Thus, expand disambig, eliminate this article, since it offers no explanation of the subject. Anastrophe (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
There is content in this article that is unique to this article, and I plan to continue to develop it. For example compare Concealed carry in the United States when it was first created in November 2004 to today, in 2014. That's all I'm going to say on the matter for today. Lightbreather (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Counter proposal

I propose that the ENTIRE article Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting be merged into this one as this article lacks the parameter problems of the other and it removes the need for any debate over WP:UNDUE regarding the Sandy Hook incident and any political movement (not just anything gun related).

Proposal: rename

Since (as I've just learned) there is already a disambig page for Assault weapons ban, and there is no content in this article that encyclopedically describes an assault weapon ban, this article should instead by renamed to List of assault weapons bans. There still remains no content in this article that is unique - that is not already covered more fully in each of the respective articles it should list, rather than duplicate (every entry has a 'main' or 'see also', which is what belongs in a list). Anastrophe (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Rationale? The disambig page should be expanded, this should be converted into a list. This meets the needs of directing readers to the correct place to get the encyclopedic information they are looking for. With no unique content, this article is merely a duplication of information.Anastrophe (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
For the same reasons given in the preceding discussion "Merger proposal" started earlier today, esp. in paragraph that states "Until recently..." If you reply to that there, I'll discuss it. Lightbreather (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is "Assault weapons ban" an appropriate title for this article?

Closed as per request and start of WP:RM process below. Number 57 11:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have started a Requested move (below), and asked to have this RfC closed. The request move process seems like a more appropriate process for this than an RfC. Lightbreather (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Is "Assault weapons ban" an appropriate title for this article? (FWIW: It is the title that it was created with.) Lightbreather (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

For reference, these are the Before and After (the article was renamed and the lead changed) leads:
Before After
An assault weapons ban is a form of gun control in the United States that defines and bans assault weapons. A federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was enacted in 1994, and expired in 2004. Attempts to renew the ban failed, as have attempts to pass a new ban, such as the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (AWB 2013). Seven U.S. states have assault weapons bans: three were enacted before the 1994 federal ban and four more passed before the federal ban expired. Assault weapons legislation addresses gun control in the United States with regard to the definition and banning (if included in the bill) of the sale and/or manufacture of assault weapons. A federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was enacted in 1994, and expired in 2004. Attempts to renew the ban failed, as have attempts to pass a new ban, such as the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (AWB 2013). Seven U.S. states have assault weapons bans: three were enacted before the 1994 federal ban and four more passed before the federal ban expired.
And all of the material in the article is about bans that are or were enacted - no bills. Lightbreather (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support. (author) It's what they're called by a preponderence of WP:V, WP:RS, as well as the majority of the general populace. To title this article anything other than "assault weapons ban" (as it was originally titled, and unilaterally changed without discussion) is WP:POVNAMING. Lightbreather (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per the Lead written by the Author, its not just about bans. The article is about gun control laws (get it, "legislation") concerning the identification and definition of certain firearms and then the steps that were taken to further regulate a variety of firearms, rifles, pistols, and shotguns. The move has resulted in a redirect, so anyone searching for the term will still arrive at the content. The new title also allows for a greater expansion of the article now or in the future. For example, this could become a home for proposed, but failed legislation regarding assault weapons. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Keep in mind that these types of laws usually only ban future possession, sale or manufacture and create a grandfathered class of people who must register their lawfully owned firearms prior to a certain date. People mistakenly say that "Action Arms Uzis" are banned in California, yet there are thousands of them legally owned and registered in California, albeit they are not transferrable to other citizens within the state who were too young or too poor to purchase them before further sale was disallowed. This is a common misnomer such as people saying that "machine guns are banned" when in fact just the creation of transferreable machine guns were prohibited after the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 FOPA. I think legislation is the more accurate term, without misleading the reader.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Of course it isn't an appropriate title - this is supposed to be an international encyclopaedia, and titles should't assume 'U.S.' is the default. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Where a less accurate term is proposed to replace a more accurate term, the more accurate term wins. In the case at hand, we can refer to legislation which refers in the legislation to controls on "assault weapons" but the concept of a "ban" requires a settled definition of the term, and requires that the legislation actually "ban" such weapons. It is determined that there is no such definition, so the change would not help the Misplaced Pages reader, which is the goal of article titles. Collect (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with old lead, although I'd suggest Assault weapons bans in the United States, given the article's US focus. I can't help noticing that the word ban appears in almost every sentence. I'll count myself as having been educated by this discussion. I hadn't realised that many assault weapons' bans in the US allow people to keep their assault weapons. (This should be made clear in the lead.) Nonetheless "assault weapons bans" is clearly the common name and IMHO accurate enough. Most bans will have a list of exceptions but it doesn't stop them being called bans. "Assault weapons legislation" is too vague and wishy-washy. It could include (hypothetical) legislation requiring every householder to possess at least one uzi. It doesn't sufficiently indicate the legislative intent of the laws which is to ban assault weapons. And Assault weapons legislation which tries to stop most people from possessing assault weapons subject to some exceptions which vary from place to place is too long. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • That's one way to look at it. Another is that "ban" is the word that the preponderance of sources use for the topic in general. When editors substitute "act" or "bill" or "legislation" or "law" instead, that's done for a reason. Lightbreather (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  • OK LB, take a deep breath and try to take this comment with a grain of salt. This is perhaps your biggest failing as a writer in my opinion, you read and interpret your writing seemingly in your "own voice" only and never seem to review it as others may interpret it. You have a meaning or intention in your head when you write it and then assume (and act with your edits) that this is the only way to state it. That's what blogs are for, but not Misplaced Pages.This comment has been stricken at the request of Lightbreather and in the interest of good WP Editor relations. The User was correct, it would have been appropriate to raise the issue on their Talk page. My apologies for not doing so. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Let's keep this on content. (If you want to talk about me, please take it to my talk page.) Where did I write that this article is not just about bans? I titled this article "Assault weapons ban" because that's what a preponderance of WP:V, WP:RS, as well as the general populace refer to them as. That is the ONLY reason I chose the title. I've said this before, but here it is again: If a reader were to rely solely on Misplaced Pages before I wrote this article, he or she might get the impression that the only AWB there ever was was the federal one that expired 10 years ago. He or she might not easily learn - via Misplaced Pages anyway - that there actually are state AWBs in force! That does not reflect well on the project. Lightbreather (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • AFG, nothing here implies anyone is a "stupid jerk" let's not degenerate into name calling or perceived name calling. I think LB is trying to be persuasive, pointing out one phrase is in far more common uses then the other. Let's keep it civil. Thenub314 (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Ummm, I called it to myself, how is that uncivil? You must be new at this.Oh and I believe the acronym you want is AGF. :)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you meant he insulted you. Thenub314 (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually LB is a she. No need to apologize we're pretty much good natured rivals with a very strong difference of opinion, that's why I try to use a bit of self-depreciating humor with my interactions.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, Mike, I think we've had a similar discussion before, and that link is... noteworthy. But not as much as the fact that there are about 20X more "assault weapons ban" results than there are "assault weapons legislation" results. And that the actual name of Feinstein's proposal was the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013," as shown in the first two links here: It wasn't titled the "Assault Weapons Legislation of 2013." And the common name for the federal ban of 1994-2004 was the "assault weapons ban," not the "assault weapons legislation." And per WP:TITLE:
Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable.
--Lightbreather (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Like Assault weapons legislation in the US? It would certainly be more accurate.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Or, Assault weapons bans in the U.S.? ;-) I'm all for WP:CSB - but re this topic, are there any other countries that have assault weapons bans? Lightbreather (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Most of them just ban everything, period. I think New Zealand has a list of firearms that are not importable, similar to the 94 ban we were subjugated to, but they allow silencers with no paperwork or illegal government tax.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I hear you, Mike. But did they/do they refer to them as assault weapons bans, as the preponderance of WP:RS and average Janes and Joes do here? Lightbreather (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge, AW is pretty much an American term. I think they use militaristic or some other neologism like "Chazzwazzers" in the commonwealth type countries.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Topic titles should indicate the topic. Which for this article is U.S. legislation. Just how hard is this to understand? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Andy, I get that you think "U.S." should be in the title. What I'm asking is, if you were going to name this article, what would you name it? Lightbreather (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure it matters that much whether it is 'legislation' or 'ban' - and frankly I think that the relentless forking of U.S.-firearms-related articles into multiple sub-topics is unnecessary, and detrimental to proper coverage of the topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Collect (talk · contribs) et al., could you cite a policy here? I'm reading your (plural) arguments, and I can see that you (plural) prefer "legislation," but which policy-based arguments are you basing this preference on? Lightbreather (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Read WP:Article titles as being about, of all things, article titles. the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable. as a start. Add a spoonful of The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. An ounce of Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. and finish the recipe with titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. Note that the page cited is a Misplaced Pages policy and thus ought to be followed here. Though I had thought this was where everyone ought to have started. Also note that titles should be used to anticipate what the reader will search for, and use of terms which are too precise or which may mislead any reader are to be avoided per policy. Collect (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
That is the policy I gave above:
Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles , precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable.
--Lightbreather (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
And readers are more likely to search for "assault weapons ban" than "assault weapons legislation." Lightbreather (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Interesting assertion but ... "Assault weapons ban" gets all of 240 Google hits (paging to end of list). "Assault weapons legislation" gets 272 such hits. It is certainly not shown that "ban" is more widely used than "legislation" and virtually every usage is US-related. As it is clear that "legislation" is the more accurate term, the choice appears simple when searches find similar numbers of results for each term. The alternative is to determine the most common term internationally for such weapons - which would be an interesting RfC. Likely "Military-style weapons" or the like, if someone can come up with a generally accepted definition thereof. Collect (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC) .
Collect, re: your claims that "'Assault weapons ban' gets all of 240 Google hits" and that "'Assault weapons legislation' gets 272 such hits." What do you mean by "paging to end of list"? Your numbers are WAY off from the results I get. Using the "Find sources: 'assault weapons ban'" link at the top of this RfC I get 772,000 results, and when I use the "Find sources: 'assault weapons legislation'" link at the top of this RfC I get 35,100 results - less than one-twentieth of the "ban" results. Where/How are you coming up with 240 and 272? Your numbers are false - unless you've left out a lot of info about how you're filtering the results. Lightbreather (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Lightbreather asked above whether there are any other countries that have assault weapons bans. That brought to mind the following from John Howard after the Port Arthur Massacre:
Re whether this article should have "U.S." in its title -- in its present form it certainly should. If it does not, it should present info on (e.g.) the following from John Howard after the Port Arthur Massacre:

"... n April 28, 1996, Martin Bryant, a psychologically disturbed man, used a semiautomatic Armalite rifle and a semiautomatic SKS assault weapon to kill 35 people in a murderous rampage in Port Arthur, Tasmania. After this wanton slaughter, I knew that I had to use the authority of my office to curb the possession and use of the type of weapons that killed 35 innocent people. ..."

I read this as an assertion that (psychologically disturbed) people don't kill people, (particular types of) guns kill people,
Googling around re assault weapons bans, I stumbled across this. I'm not sure how (or if) that fits into this discussion, but I thought I would mention it.
Re "ban" vs. "legislation" in the title, it appears to me that the article currently focuses much more on "ban" than it does on "legislation". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Future of this article

Personally I like the idea of this article and I'm glad to see a place where various forms or versions of Assault Weapon legislation can be collected and presented. Its a good start, but it needs expansion. I'd like to see failed legislation content added which hopefully will curb the creation of stub articles about bills that never made it anywhere. A line or two of content IMO is better than an AfD'd article. I'd also like to see more in depth explanation of how the term "assault weapon" was used, applied, and/or defined in each piece of enacted legislation. We've had so much discussion and derision over this controversial term that this could be the place where we start to shed light on misconceptions and finally distinguish fact from media hype. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should take it slow. The name of this article is still up in the air, and its scope, too. Lightbreather (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Why, you move as fast as you want when it suits you. Plus consensus is leaning towards the "legislation" as its more encyclopedic and less controversial, the redirect accomplishes your intention of having the phrase "assault weapon ban" associated with the article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
If you want to discuss me, take it to my talk page please. The subject here is content. Consensus is not determined by a simple vote count. The reasons given must be weighed as well, and the arguments opposing keeping/"renaming" this article "Assault weapons ban" are weak and contrary to WP:TITLE. Lightbreather (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Sadly, I agree, the arguments in favor of using the word ban are pretty weak.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Illinois

Does not the state of Illinois have laws barring the legal possession of Modern Sporting Rifles as well, or are they only prohibited in a few cities?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the status on that... But talk about made-up words! Modern sporting rifle was coined in 2009 by Defense Procurement Manufacturing Services founder Randy Luth and used by the National Shooting Sports Foundation to market the AR-15 platform to hunters and others sportsmen. The Google search "illinois state ban modern sporting rifle site:illinois.gov" gives 8 results ; "illinois state ban assault weapon site:illinois.gov" gives 347 results.
  1. "DPMS Founder and President Retires". The Outdoor Wire Digital Network. 14 December 2009. Retrieved 16 August 2013. Luth's quest to introduce the hunting market to the AR platform was recognized in January 2009 when he was named to the Outdoor Life's OL-25, and later chosen by online voters as the OL-25 "Reader's Choice" recipient. The recent campaign by the NSSF to educate hunters everywhere about the "modern sporting rifle" can be directly attributed to Luth's push to make AR rifles acceptable firearms in the field, the woods and on the range.
Lightbreather (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Illinois does not have state-level restrictions on firearms that have been legally defined as assault weapons, but some local governments do. The law that set up the state's concealed carry system, enacted on July 9, 2013, also established state preemption for certain areas of gun law. One of these preempted areas was bans or other restrictions on assault weapons, except that laws passed before July 20, 2013 (i.e. within ten days of the law coming into effect) would be grandfathered in. So local assault weapon laws that were already on the books at the time are still in effect, and also a number of local governments passed new laws before the deadline. Here are two stories about this from the Chicago Tribune: "Municipalities rush to pass assault weapons limits before Friday's deadline", "Some suburbs pass assault weapon restrictions, others dissuaded by gun owners". — Mudwater 11:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. @Lightbreather: The reference you provided, from The Outdoor Wire, does not support the statement that the term "modern sporting rifle" was coined in 2009 by the National Shooting Sports Foundation. — Mudwater 11:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
LB, did you know that the term "assault weapon" was coined by Josh Sugarman in the 1980s to purposefully confuse antigunners who were and are ignorant about firearms? His reasoning was that they would confuse semiautomatic look-alike rifles with military versions. Obviously he was correct.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I know that is one of several notions re: the origins of the term - including that the gun industry itself cooked it up, or the media - but none has been proven definitively, whereas the origin of "modern sporting rifle" is clear. Lightbreather (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: I'm closing this on Lightbreather's request: No move. This has run long enough and no one has contributed in over a week. This is kind of an interesting discussion since there is really only one contributor who makes a policy-based argument. Lightbreather essentially argues that the previous move was done out of process (an argument reiterated by Blue-Haired Lawyer), and she may well have a point, but it's not supported by a consensus of editors. She also argues that it's "Recognizable, Natural, Precise, Concise, and Consistent", but this is neither argued nor explained. Collect basically argues that the move request is out of process; this admin disagrees with that since the RfC was being closed as the RM was being started--though it sure is bothersome, and I wonder if the lack of participation in this RM isn't due to editors being asked to comment twice, basically. Scalhotrod objects on similar procedural grounds, with a somewhat nasty remark thrown in, and both are neither here nor there. Thenub314's argument for neutrality doesn't take flight, and the JSTOR argument isn't very valid either--common sense already dictates that the exact phrase needn't be that searchable in that way, and from the third sentence of Misplaced Pages:Article titles one can infer the same. Mike Searson offers "we must strive for accuracy and neutrality"--well, sure, but if that's all you have to say than a closing admin could just as well base an opposite vote on that argument--an opposite vote "per Mike" being cleverly provided by the aforementioned Thenub. Is that everyone? No, we still have Celestra, who gets the apple as today's teacher's pet: "The current article is about multiple bans and the proposed title is singular, misleading ... and assumes that U.S. is implied". This is a valid argument opposing the move, and it seals the deal.

But not so fast: as the hardest-working admin this side of Dennis Brown, I looked at the previous RfC as well, where fortunately there are more extensive comments (as I mentioned before, I suspect that editors were loath to argue twice). Celestra's argument is found there as well, in the comments made by Scalthotrod, possibly Mike Searson (though their point is lost in some verbiage about toy Uzis or something like that), AndytheGrump, and Collect. Besides Thenub and Lightbreather, BlueHaired Lawyer supports the renaming; the first two actually don't argue much, and the latter's "'Assault weapons legislation' is too vague and wishy-washy. It could include (hypothetical) legislation requiring every householder to possess at least one uzi", is unconvincing and fails as a reductio ad absurdum.

So! In short, the article should not be moved. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Drmies (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


Assault weapons legislation → Assault weapons ban – This article's name was "Assault weapons ban" but it got renamed by another editor as a way to fix his problem on another page. His problem on the other page was that it had a link to "Assault weapons ban" in its See also section. Three times he removed it; two times he claimed that the article was already linked in the article (it wasn't) and once he gave no reason at all, but deleted it as part of a larger edit (scroll down). Having deleted it three times, his next move was to unilaterally move/rename the linked-to article and declared the problem "resolved". I started an RfC to move/rename it back to its original title, but having discovered this process, I'd like to close the RfC and use this process instead. The move/rename of this article was WP:DE, and the new title is WP:POVNAMING and against WP:TITLE. Lightbreather (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose noting that no strong positive consensus for such a move has been shown. (The RfC above from the same OP, in fact, appears to show a balance against the move) The WP:DEADLINE has not yet arrived. Page moves ought not be undertaken lightly, or on momentary or ephemeral debate, but on a long-term basis only. Collect (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC) (btw, implicit attacks on another editor are not really a strong argument on any talk page anywhere on Misplaced Pages) Collect (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
As someone recently said to me, "RfCs are not a vote." But more than that, this process is the appropriate process for this situation. I apologize for not knowing that before and starting an RfC instead. Also, please note in instruction box above: "Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil." Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
You started an RfC. You then stopped the RfC at the one day mark after it was clearly not proceeding on the course you sought. Then you start a "requested move" which, frankly, is a form of RfC - but simply giving you a second bite of the apple. Problem is -- the same editors who did not back your RfC in the first place are not all that likely to back this one.. Yes - these are not' "votes" but absent any reasonable expectation that you have a consensus for your proposal, it is highly unlikely to gain consensus this time either. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose we must strive for accuracy and neutrality.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Per Mike, we are looking for neutrality. Unfortunately I think Mike is wrong about what is Neutral. According to policy "Article titles should reflect common usage" and as the links discussed on this page show, Assault weapons ban is far more common usage then "Assault weapons legislation". Given that JSTOR comes up with zero results on this phrase, I would even go so far to suggest the phrase is a type of synthesis. We would be wordsmithing (or at least promoting) a new phrase to make to satisfy some contributors incorrect notion of Neutrality. Thenub314 (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree for the reasons I gave in the RFC. Since this article was only recently moved from "Assault weapons ban" to "Assault weapons legislation", absent consensus supporting this move the default position is to move it back to the stable title. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 09:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Even though Assault weapons legislation is more encyclopedic, less controversial, and given the redirect that was created in the process anyone searching for the term will still find it? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
This is about the process, per WP:MOVE, that is SUPPOSED to be used when a controversial article is unilaterally moved without discussion. I apologize for first starting an RfC, but I didn't know about this process when you unilaterally moved this article without discussion. Please leave the requested move tag or whatever it's called in place until the process is complete. Also, please note that the process says: "Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil." Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I have asked for help at the Teahouse about how to restore the Requested move listing and date. That is here: Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/Questions#How to restore date on a Requested move Lightbreather (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The current article is about multiple bans and the proposed title is singular, misleading (in that it is the common name of the federal AWB and the article includes other bans) and assumes that U.S. is implied. "Assault weapons legislation" is better on two of those, but I think a better title might be "United States legislation to ban assault weapons" or "Summary of United ...". Either of those titles, while long, better describe the actual content. Celestra (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move/Rename compromise

Based on edits of the past 15 days related to this article's name (originally "Assault weapons ban"), and on the comments in the RfC above, and on the comments in the RM above, I have moved/renamed "Assault weapons legislation" (chosen and changed unilaterally by one editor) to "Assault weapons bans in the United States." I hope that is a compromise that all can agree to. Lightbreather (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Compromise? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Lightbreather (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I understood the request, I'm just not sure why you consider the new title a compromise. The crux of the issue is the use of the word "ban", adding "United States" to the title simply narrows the scope of the article. Furthermore, Drmies closed the Move Request saying that it should not be moved. Why are you trying to circumvent their decision? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I just closed the RM. What I think is next is a. people stop moving stuff and b. some arguments are hammered out on the talk page. In fact, I'm going to move-protect this for the while: two moves (were there more?) done by way of BOLDness is enough for now. Scalhotrod, I really have no opinion, though I can see arguments for this new title based on conversations here and the actual content of the article, which (currently) is exclusively about the US. But that doesn't matter--if it's the WP:WRONGVERSION I'm protecting, this can always be undone. I would suggest that you all (and Lightbreather, you moved this, it's kind of your responsibility, per the Pottery Barn, maybe you should notify some people or a project) discuss this here, briefly and cordially. On another note, Scalhotrod, I appreciate your not moving this thing right back and Lightbreather, I'm a bit surprised--not miffed, but surprised. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Drmies, I think the response I just posted to Scal will answer most of your musings, but one thing you wrote confuses me: "Scalhotrod, I appreciate your not moving this thing right back." What did you mean by that? Because by my reading of the article's history, he moved this thing right back three times. Lightbreather (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
What I mean is, no-one gave me any strokes for starting a discussion on Scal's talk page after his first unilateral move of this article's original title. Or for starting the RfC above after his second move (I think Thenub314 recognized my effort on that somewhere on another talk page or maybe in an edit summary). Or for showing restraint and not just reverting his third move. Scal started no discussion on my talk page. He started no RfC. He started no RM. He just reverted to his preferred article title three times in a row. Even after I'd started THIS discussion - and a fairly civil one, I think. His reply was just a snarky, one-word comeback: "Compromise?" at 8:59 (and how does THAT help anyone come to an agreement?) and his third revert at 9:00. Lightbreather (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Scal, Drmies closed the RM saying that it should not be moved (backed to its original title). I disagree with his decision, and I was disappointed, but I appreciate that he put a lot of thought into it. And I'm not trying to circumvent it.

  1. Blue-Haired Lawyer's support for the original title included this comment: "although I'd suggest Assault weapons bans in the United States, given the article's US focus."
  2. In making his decision, Drmies wrote this: Celestra : "'The current article is about multiple bans and the proposed title is singular, misleading ... and assumes that U.S. is implied'. This is valid argument opposing the move, and it seals the deal."
  3. There are already WP articles with "ban" in the title: Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. Plus the Assault weapons ban disambiguation page.
  4. There is a WP article titled Speed limits in the United States. (Not "Speed legislation in the United States.")

For THESE reasons, I chose to move/rename the article to "Assault weapons bans in the United States." And if it was OK for you to boldly, unilaterally move/rename the original title of an article under a category that is currently under discretionary sanctions, then it had better be OK for me to boldy move this one. Further, if it's OK for you to accuse me of ownership - without evidence - then it's surely OK for me to say that YOU are displaying OWNERSHIP behavior... and I can give at least seven diffs right now as evidence. But I really would rather not play that game, so... How about it? Will you, with God and Drmies and the whole WP gun-control related universe watching right now, prove me wrong and agree to rename this article "Assault weapons bans in the United States" as a compromise? Considering that we've both been less-than-stellar editors on this, I think that's a pretty good solution to this problem. Lightbreather (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


I have notified every editor who participated - pro or con - in the RfC and RM above, plus editors who participated in this discussion - pro or con (except for Gaijin42) - to participate here. I will be away from my desk for about a week, but I will be checking in as best I'm able with my phone. Lightbreather (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Categories: