Talk:AR-15–style rifle: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

Ianmacm (talk | contribs)

3 user groups
48,153 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 170: Line 170:
:::This was discussed by the community at [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_14]] with consensus for inclusion. This doesn't prevent us from revisiting the question, but community consensus should not be overturned without a larger discussion. –[[User:Dlthewave|dlthewave]] [[User_talk:Dlthewave|☎]] 16:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:::This was discussed by the community at [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_14]] with consensus for inclusion. This doesn't prevent us from revisiting the question, but community consensus should not be overturned without a larger discussion. –[[User:Dlthewave|dlthewave]] [[User_talk:Dlthewave|☎]] 16:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
::::I have no issue with discussion of it again (consensus can change), I do take issue with the characterization of the issues as presented by the OP.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
::::I have no issue with discussion of it again (consensus can change), I do take issue with the characterization of the issues as presented by the OP.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 16:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::The alternative is to say "let's not mention that an AR-15 style rifle has ever been used in a mass shooting" which is also an unsatisfactory position per [[WP:NOTCENSORED]], which says "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content." Like it or not, the AR-15 style rifle has acquired a bit of a reputation due to the ease with which it can fall into the wrong hands (Stoneman Douglas, Sandy Hook etc). It would be wrong to remove all mention of this as it is a key part of the gun's background. I don't believe that some mass shooters have ''specifically'' chosen an AR-15 style rifle, but its status as the most common rifle of this type has inevitably led to controversy over whether civilians should own weapons of this type. The article has to look at this.--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 16:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


===
===

Revision as of 16:46, 5 April 2019

Template:Vital article

Template:Be calm

Template:Annual readership


not a list of mass shootings

This is not a list of mass shootings using AR-15's, the list is only of the most deadly (and 10 does not even come close).Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, but I reverted addition of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting because it was unsourced. I might have requested a source citation if the added text stood alone; but splicing it into existing text gave the erroneous impression it was sourced by the following citation. I hope better information becomes available; because early accounts seem inconclusive about the model of rifle carried by the shooter, and which of the four available firearms were used to cause casualties. Thewellman (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite:, please see this discussion as well as the several above it. Springee (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think it should be kept pending discussion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Agreed. This was the deadliest attack against Jews in the history of the USA. It is everywhere, and just about every source mentions the rifle. Why anyone thinks it should not be mentioned in a section on mass shootings with these rifles is hard to fathom.Waleswatcher (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove pending discussion: The material has already been removed more than once which now means it requires consensus for inclusion. This article is not meant to be a list of every shooting or even mass shooting that was committed in part or in total with an AR-15 type rifle. That is what the mass shooting list is for. In this article we can cover the controversy around the AR-15 rifle due to it's use in mass shootings. To establish the foundation for this discussion the article lists 5 shootings due to the fact that they are members of the 10 most deadly mass shooting in the US. With that foundation of WHY the article should discuss mass shootings there is no reason to list new ones. If there is a wish to create a list of every mass shooting that used an AR-15 why not create that as a list topic then link it to the mass shooting section here? Springee (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a list of the deadliest; The Port Arthur Massacre is mentioned. –dlthewave ☎ 12:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion of Port Arthur significantly predates the references to the ten deadliest in US history - and whereas the 10 deadliest sentence is due for the preponderance of the AR-15 style rifle in especially deadly shootings, the inclusion of Port Arthur is due to the significant changes to Australian firearms law following that shooting. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)+[reply]
Also it is not part of that list, it is a separate paragraph.Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The sentence about the ten deadliest shootings and the paragraph about Port Arthur are not to be taken as part of a comprehensive list. Both were included for separate notability reasons and have distinct criteria. While I'm personally horrified by this obvious hate crime, and do believe it to be a notable event, the consensus on this page has been hard-won and is often fragile. As such we really try to avoid WP:RECENTISM as much as possible. If the discussion of this crime, in coming weeks, includes sustained discussion of the AR-15 style rifle the shooter used, we can look at if it's appropriate for inclusion on this page at that time. In the meantime it is definitely due inclusion at Mass shootings in the United States. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Black Kite that section is specifically about the ten deadliest. As far as I know, this one is tied for 20th deadliest mass shooting in modern US history (post 1945) which... well... it's pretty terrifying when you consider that in the 20th and 21st century the only mass shooting in Canada that was as deadly as it was the École Polytechnique massacre. But I would suggest, with regard to notability that we should wait until WP:RECENTISM is less of an issue to adjudicate to what extent the specific firearm becomes relevant to this tragedy compared to the obvious blatant bigotry of the perpetrator in order to establish clearly that this incident is WP:DUE here in particular. Simonm223 (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Listing the 20 most deadliest shootings with AR-15 style rifles would be intricate detail here. In fact it's also likely that it wouldn't be appropriate for a standalone article either since the the scope of "massacres done with the most common rifle in the US" is trivial. --Pudeo (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be included It's true the Pittsburgh shooting shouldn't be in that list, since it's not one of the ten deadliest shootings (which is shocking in its own horrible way). But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned. As a very notable attack it should be, just as Port Arthur is. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Port Arthur changed then law of nation, so far this has not even upset Donnies campaigning. When this has a real tangible effect on the firearms issue then it might be worth including, but as long as it is just more "thoughts and prayers" it is not more significant then any other mass shooting.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Synagogue shooting

"The federal criminal complaint filed against Robert Bowers details the 29 federal criminal counts he’s charged with and the weapons he used during the shooting at Tree of Life Synagogue. (...) According to the complaint, Bowers had four weapons on him including three Glock .357 handguns as well as a Colt AR-15 model SP1" Source, which is an AR-15 style rifle. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone found a source indicating which firearm caused the wounds (fatal or non-fatal)? In the absence of such information, it seems inappropriate conjecture to credit (or blame) the AR-15 style rifle rather than the Glock pistols, which (in addition to their pre-event publicity) would seem to have a three to one probability advantage in this event. Thewellman (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Bowers used a Colt AR-15 rifle and three Glock .357 handguns during the attack, police said." [1]. You raise a valid point, we may need to wait until specific details are released. –dlthewave ☎ 12:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ERROR IN Assaulted weapons and crime/Majors against illegal guns.

Hello, I just did two minor edits to the article. The second one included a passage about assault rifles being used in 25% of mass shootings.


However, when you click the link referenced to (https://psmag.com/news/simple-facts-mass-shootings-arent-simple-72055) then it's obvious that there must have been a mix up. There are two figures in the article immediately next to each other. "25%" and "14 out of 93". This wikipedia article quotes the wrong number (25%) instead of the actual one (14 out of 93) from the analysis done by Mayors Aginst Illegal Guns.


I went ahead and corrected it.

Interesting, looks like a typo on the source. It should be 15%, the source in psmag article refers to this which is where they got the 14 out of 93. That source correctly calls it 15%. PackMecEng (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We had a ding dong about this at the time. with me (more or less) saying we should not say 25%.Slatersteven (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha yeah I remember that, figures. PackMecEng (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit confused here

Why would some socks/IP editors work so hard to remove a comment that said the press often refers to AR-15 style rifles as "AR-15s"? [[2]] I get that this article draws a lot of people who either want to make it all about the crimes or nothing about the crimes. But I don't get why this bit of text would turn into some sort of edit war. Springee (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colt AR-15 fanatics, likely. Or just strawman trolling. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archived

My usual note that I've archived any threads that haven't received a further response in ~ a month. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent

The use of this word has been discussed and arrived at by consensus and should be reinstated.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was reinstated. Nobody has removed it since you reinstated it. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it was added by a new users (as a minor edit) so it might be worth telling them that is here for a reason.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SS, "prominent" was added as part of a consensus process, and not an easy one at that. I'm not sure about the other material that was added at the same time. SS self reverted their removal but removal might be the right thing. I'm not sure if the material is supported by any of our current references though I'm sure that could be corrected. My bigger concern is the material seems to be talking about the origin of the Armalite AR-15 vs the generic copies of the Colt civilian model. The lineage as I understand it would be Armalite AR-10 -> Armalite AR-15 -> Colt (M-16 and civilian AR-15) -> generic AR-15s. So while the subject of this article, the generic AR-15s trace back to the AR-10, that lineage is perhaps to distant to be mentioned here. I think it could be OK here with a bit of text massaging or it could be removed with no harm to the article. Springee (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was also wondering about that too, this is about a type of rifle, not a specific make. But even if we include it, it has nothing to do with the terminology (rather it is about the historical background).Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the edits were good faith and I can see why they were added but I actually agree with your removal upon further consideration. This article didn't say Stoner created the rifle so the additional clarifications aren't needed. I will revert Slatersteven's self revert. Springee (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article has a citation that does not relate to the claim/statement.

In the Terminology section, there is a claim made about the origin of the name "Modern Sporting Rifle" that has numerous citations. It looks like the first is the only one that has a chance of supporting the claim. The second (I'm using a mobile device; sorry if formatting is off) is a link to a Slate article that discusses an incident in which an AR-15 was used. It appears to be somewhat of an option piece, and it is not a source for the origin of the name. This is the URL: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2016/06/the_sig_sauer_mcx_used_in_orlando_is_a_modern_sporting_rifle_not_an_assault.html.

I think it should be removed. If somebody loves the article, it would be appropriate for a section (or article) about the AR-15's controversy, political issues, or similar.

How am I doing for a first "Talk" page post? Grossdm (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over inclusion/exclusion of "Use in crime and mass shootings" section

@Slatersteven: @Rmmiller44: please discuss the dispute over this here on the talk page rather than edit warring in the article itself. I have protected the article for 24 hours. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I asked them to.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening discussion of appropriateness of the crimes section

Upon seeking trivial information today about the weight of an AR 15, I noticed a section entitled "Use in crimes and mass shootings." This entire section is not NPOV.

This section is completely inappropriate for this entry. It is motivated by political opposition to semi-automatic rifles in general and this gun in particular. The previous talk on this entry exhibits inflammatory emotional appeal to include this section to describe the weapon as horrific. The section refers to this gun as the "Weapon of choice" for mass shootings, a statement that is false, unsupported, and is tainted with normative judgment and bias. A citation does not make this normative opinion a meaningful fact.

The AR 15 just happens to be one of the most prevalent weapon platforms on the planet, and especially in the US. By virtue of its sheer numbers alone, it will be disproportionately involved in crime. This does not make it a "weapon of choice" for crime any more than it is the "weapon of choice" for people defending their homes and businesses, hunting, or national defense. The citation for this comment contains only anecdotal evidence. The mass shootings section is ANECDOTAL, not evidence.

In one of the anecdotes of a mass shooting, the AR 15 was only one of and a minority of the guns used.

Notably, the people who have been fighting for inclusion of this section have demonstrated on this talk page that they would like to have included many more than the 10 worst shootings involving the AR 15. That is, they would prefer to make this article with information ABOUT the AR 15 into a diatribe of criticisms of its existence in public hands.

Mr. Slater, in particular, has reverted my edits twice. My edits contained a full explanation of why I deleted the section with reference to Wikipedia standards. His reversion mentioned that a consensus had been reached for inclusion, yet no such consensus exists in the talk. The only discussion is between people who want to keep the section in how many mass shootings they can discuss, 10, 20, more, all.

Notably, there is no section on the use in crimes in the entry for the Kalashnikov rifle which has been used in the most horrific mass killings in history. While not dispositive, it demonstrates that inclusion of this section for the AR 15 is motivated to change the policies in democratic western countries, not to inform the reader.

It is entirely appropriate to mention in an article about a mass shooting that a particular weapon was used. That information is a critical part of the entry. But that does not imply that a mass shooting with an AR 15 is a critical piece of information about the AR 15. It is anecdotal and parenthetical. As one person said in the edit history, hundreds of millions of these rifles are owned without incident. Another commenter noted that investigative authorities in Christchurch did not confirm the make and model of the firearms used.

As an analogue, a person used a Dodge Charger to run over protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia. It is entirely appropriate (although trivial) to mention in the Charlottesville killing entry that a man drove his Dodge Charger into a crowd of protesters. It is completely inappropriate to put a section onto the Dodge Charger (or Dodge) page talking about "Crimes using Dodge Chargers." It attributes to the car the evil actions of the perpetrator. Indeed, the average reader would find the particular car used in that attack as trivial.

The use of the word "style" itself is intentionally vague and ambiguous as a means of attributing to the AR 15 as many misuses as possible. Clearly every rifle commonly used in defense in NATO countries, all which use the same caliber and magazine, will have similar qualities to the AR. Indeed, aesthetic qualities are evolutionary in nature, and those qualities that are desirable will propagate. Indeed, laws in the US and elsewhere that have banned AR-style rifles commonly rely on cosmetic appearance, not function, to define the banned weapons.

I have never been involved in any "edit war" in the 12 years I have been involved with Wikipedia. When I make my edits, I explain my rationale according to the Wikipedia rules. Mr. Slater who reverted my changes merely referred to a "consensus" in the talk that does not exist. He confuses the preponderance of discussion with "consensus." As described in the wikipedia rules, a "consensus" is an agreement on facts for which there is no reasonable dispute. The edit and talk history shows that there is NO CONSENSUS on the inclusion of this section. And to the extent there ever was, I now dispute that with this discussion.

Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a soap box. No encyclopedia would have a section on Use in Mass Shootings for any gun. Mr. Slater is clearly using this page as a soapbox for his anti-gun sentiments.

Wikipedia requires a Neutral Point of View, and Mr. Slater clearly wants an article that denigrates this rifle for the purpose of having them politically banned.

Wikipedia requires DEBATE, not merely reverting changes and saying, "This has been discussed" especially when it has not been discussed. There is no consensus here. Rmmiller44 (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Rmmiller44[reply]

First off please read wp:agf.
As to the wall of text. No we do not say it is " a weapon of choice" we say it has widely been called that (and it is supported by multiple sources).
We also do not say it is disproportionaly used in crime (in fact we say the exact opposite), what we say is that it has been used in half of the deadliest mass shootings. Nor do I recall anyone saying it should be a longer list, in fact far from it (in fact if you care to check you will find I argued against the list, saying it should be more vaguely worded as it will be open to change).
As to no consensus, consensus is not "you agree with me" it is "the most agree". Yes this was a agreed by consensus, look, at how much this has been discussed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...no such consensus exists in the talk.
Talk:AR-15 style rifle/Archive 6 (105 instances of "mass shoot")
Talk:AR-15 style rifle/Archive 5 (217 instances of "mass shoot")
Talk:AR-15 style rifle/Archive 4 (101 instances of "mass shoot")
Talk:AR-15 style rifle/Archive 3 (154 instances of "mass shoot")
Talk:AR-15 style rifle/Archive 2 (84 instances of "mass shoot")
Talk:AR-15 style rifle/Archive 1 (42 instances of "mass shoot")
That's just the talk page archives, not including conversations in the WP:NPOVN archives and elsewhere. Leviv ich 15:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With all of them coming down in favour of inclusion, that is what we mean by consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed by the community at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_14 with consensus for inclusion. This doesn't prevent us from revisiting the question, but community consensus should not be overturned without a larger discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 16:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with discussion of it again (consensus can change), I do take issue with the characterization of the issues as presented by the OP.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative is to say "let's not mention that an AR-15 style rifle has ever been used in a mass shooting" which is also an unsatisfactory position per WP:NOTCENSORED, which says "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content." Like it or not, the AR-15 style rifle has acquired a bit of a reputation due to the ease with which it can fall into the wrong hands (Stoneman Douglas, Sandy Hook etc). It would be wrong to remove all mention of this as it is a key part of the gun's background. I don't believe that some mass shooters have specifically chosen an AR-15 style rifle, but its status as the most common rifle of this type has inevitably led to controversy over whether civilians should own weapons of this type. The article has to look at this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

=

No, "consensus" does not mean "the most agree" and no such most exists in the talk. The mere fact that a handful of zealots for inclusion temporarily outnumber those who don't does not mean "consensus." A consensus is general agreement, that is, there are no unreasonable disputes about the factual basis for any included entry, section, or fact. Such a disagreement exists here. But factual truth is not the whole measure of what is appropriate in an entry.
No consensus can override the Wikipedia Pillars. This section is inherently non-NPOV designed to oppose this weapon system in government policy. As I've stated more than once, there is no rationale for its inclusion in this ENCYCLOPEDIA entry, and neither you nor anyone else has provided a reason. You are confusing discussion among people of like mind with reaching a consensus. Several people other than me have noted the non-NPOV nature of this section.
I always assume good faith, but when bad faith is obvious, I need not extend it. The section is obviously non-NPOV and no one has attempted to defend it as being NPOV. I have raised this point several times, others have raised this, and you have never argued against that.
I did not say you said it was a "weapon of choice." That is a straw man. And that is also quibbling. Citing someone who says this phrase is giving validity to it. The reference, however, is a bald assertion of someone's OPINION. That opinion is unsupported by any facts and is, in fact, factually false. We could easily spend 30 pages of adding content that talks about what people have said about an AR 15. An encyclopedia entry is about facts, not opinions, not speeches.
As an example, if I edited the Wikipedia entry on "Modern liberalism in the United States" with a section on "Notable Liberals Who Committed Crimes", this would obviously have a political agenda and hence non-NPOV even though every fact is true and well supported with references. You have not addressed WHY this section is not non-NPOV.
"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." It is not appropriate to include in the AR 15 entry every incident, good or bad, involving the use of an AR 15. Would you favor a section of the top 10 uses of AR 15s in self defense? Other entries on guns don't include this section.
What you favor is not "consensus." It is mob rule. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and talk is not a "vote."

Rmmiller44 (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)Rmmiller44[reply]

We do not include every incident (as far as I know), and I have opposed such making this a list of all crimes involving the AR-15 style rifle. As to why it is not NPOV, well we give both sides of the debate, this we represent all views. Many (many many) RS have made a point about (specifically) the AR-15 and its use in mass shootings (not crime, but deadly mass shootings). If RS said this about cars, politicians or small elephants then it would be fitting to mention this in other articles. The fact is that generally such issues do not arise, even with many other guns. The AR-15 has received a unique level of attention, and out article must reflect that (maybe because it has been used in so many attacks where multiple 10's of people have died, which is all we say).Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F891094342