The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
There are currenly three definitions for assault rifle,
- A rifle or carbine that is capable of selective fire, has a detachable magazine, and fires an intermediate-power cartridge.
- (colloquial) A semi-automatic firearm that resembles a military weapon.
- (colloquial) An assault weapon as outlined in various legislations in the US.
An earlier definition covered this better with
- Any of a group of military rifles that fires a shortened rifle caliber round from a high capacity magazine.
To this was added a usage note with ...
- There is no widespread official definition of assault rifle, and the meaning varies among different jurisdictions. However, according to the US Federal legislation, any semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon if it has a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following: a pistol grip, a folding or telescoping stock, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher.
We need to simplify these three defs. I can't see why all of them can't go back to one. I think the 2nd one is wrong, as no one would consider a .22 gun an assault rifle just because it looks like one. (there is such a model). Nor should we have the third one, as it is redundant, and matches the first two. It's also POV where none is called for.
What can we do here to settle this, as it has been going back and forward for a while. I definitly disagree with the claim that an assault rifle needs to be selective fire, as it does not. (Wikipedia claims this also, but that's not gospel) .--Dmol 03:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Point of order: this seems like an RFD discussion.
- Having separate definitions based on individual countries' legal codes is not viable; some words could end up with a separate definition for every English-speaking country. The usage note is fine IMO, but that's as far as it should go. Re-merge per nom. -- Visviva 04:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see how this is so much a matter of debate. The only way to definitively settle on a definition is to require attested usage (normal Wikt standards) for each specific attribute in the definition. We are a descriptive dictionary of usage with specific standards for inclusion. We do not have official technical definitions. An official technical definition, even from a durably archived source, has no value whatsoever for attestation, being a mere mention.
- Other dictionaries make do with a single, fairly vague definition. My quick review of usage at COCA shows that the vagueness accurately reflects current American usage. Much of the usage is of the form "[model name] assault rifle". Perhaps one could infer a more specific definition from the features of the leading models mentioned.
- If disputants insist on a specific definition, let them produce some valid citations.
- IOW, RfV any sense that doesn't seem likely to be attestable. If there turns out be enough attestable usage, fine. If we have ten attested definitions, fine. If we end up with an appendix containing 3,000 attested (or unattested?) legal definitions of assault rifles, so be it. I doubt we will find anyone to do the work to support even three valid senses. DCDuring TALK 04:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I will respectfully accept the exclusion of my definitions until i can attest them (not that i'm that resourceful). My only dispute now is the usage note. I had thought assault weapon was the term used in various US locations for bans on certain combinations of features. If not, i can believe it. I suggest that in the first mention of assault weapon here, weapon be italicized. --Leif Runenritzer 05:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have re-merged the senses as suggested above, and am leaving a usage note. I'm striking this as RFV-failed-ish. — Beobach972 19:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)