Template:Vital article

Template:Be calm

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Firearms Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sports This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Requested articles (Sports) Requested articles (Association football) Requested articles (Association football women) Requested articles (Motor sports) Requested articles (Estonian sportspeople) Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status. Cleanup : Sport governing body (this should-be-major article is in a shameful state) Field hockey (History section needs sources and accurate information - very vague at the moment.) Standardize Category:American college sports infobox templates to use same font size and spacing. Sport in the United Kingdom - the Popularity section is incorrect and unsourced. Reliable data is required. Fix project template and/or "to do list" Current version causes tables of content to be hidden unless/until reader chooses "show." Expand : Professional sports (crucial article explaining the salaried undertaking of sports) * Sport industry (currently a sub-stub) Photo : for pages listed in Category:Wikipedia requested images of sports and games and sub-categories. Stubs : work on articles in Category:Sports stubs Update : List of world sports championships Other : Add reliable sources. Experienced editors have free access to books on sports from McFarland. Translate the page of sport in each country from corresponding article in other language Wikipedia to English Wikipedia which was marked in red. Categorize: Gather all (major/olympic) sports to be part of this project RfCs: answer requests for comment United States Low‑importance This 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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: Gun politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Gun politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

Template:Annual readership

@Ianmacm: This proposed edit was a bit of a rehash of a similar edit by an IP, that was over-detailed for the lede. I think it fits in the proposed section ok, as it provide some quantification to the preceding statement that a "majority" of homicides are by other weapons. I find it quite relevant to the "Use in crime and mass shootings" section of this article. Can you expand on your thoughts? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We already cover this, with the first sentence.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of but not really. The first sentence of the section is about handguns. If anything the proposed add is more on-topic than that sentence. VQuakr (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the relevance, if the majority are with handguns then rifles (well all long arms) are a minority. Not do I think that specific years or figures are useful, do we up date this every year? if not why not?. Also the issue over AR-15's is not how often they are used, but how many are killed in mass shootings using them. Thus (for a complete statistical picture) we would also need casualty figures, number owned compared to number used in crime...and god knows what other statistics. We do not need this much detail in a small paragraph.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of this, and thought that this edit was a bit point-y. It is true that rifles are not commonly used in homicides in the US, and that handguns are far more commonly used. However, there is a risk of using this to sidestep the controversy over semi-automatic rifles as a whole being used in mass shootings. With the exception of the Virginia Tech shooting, nearly all mass casualty shootings in the US involved the use of some sort of semi-automatic rifle. Not all of them were AR-15 style rifles though: the Orlando nightclub shooting was a SIG MCX and the 2019 El Paso shooting was a WASR.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I argue for vagueness not exactitude here. This is ongoing and tomorrow all of this could be out of date. So the more exact we are the more we will have to update to take into account the latest...incident(s).Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ianmacm: pointy or no, we are in agreement that this doesn't belong in the lede. The underlying fact (that assault-style weapons have an outsized role in mass shootings but are uncommon weapons to be used in homicides overall) should be neutrally communicated. No reduction of the coverage of mass shootings in that section has been proposed. VQuakr (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: "a minority" and "about 2%" both true statements but they have different connotations. We use most recent year statistics all over the place on WP. VQuakr (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And in places we do not. And again we if we have stats we need them all for context, and that will be to burdensome to the article.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very in the middle on this. I think the reason for inclusion is valid given the politics around this topic. However, I also see that it comes across as a bit on the pointy side and feels like it was included to make a point vs because it fits naturally. I think it would be a more valid point if this topic were about the range of rifles that people might normally think of as assault weapons. Finally, I recall this was a point of discussion a while back. I feel like the final text was that sort of balance that no one really loved but everyone felt they could live with. For that reason I would be reluctant to change things. After a very rocky period this article seems reasonably stable. That's a good thing. Springee (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It not 4 Las Vegas shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Sutherland Springs church shooting, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, thats 5. Around half means (perhaps) half, slightly less then half or slightly more then half. Its vague enough for us not to need updating it every time a nutter with a grudge decides to exercise his right to fight oppression.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Both sides of the argument have used statistics to bolster their case, which is why I am wary of doing this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doing what?Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Slatersteven. This was another compromise solution that wasn't what either side of the debate really wanted but did represent a negotiated consensus. Springee (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automatic rifles are dangerous/safe. Oh yes they are. Oh no they aren't. It is possible to cite statistics appearing to support both of these positions. WP:MEDRS says "Avoid over-emphasizing single studies" and there is a similar situation here. As mentioned previously, rifles as a whole are not the same as AR-15 style rifles or semi-automatic rifles. I'm not against pointing out that rifles as a whole are not commonly used in US homicides, but their role in mass shootings is what has led to the controversy. This is similar to what I said on my talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are arguing against including the material you just removed. That is, if I'm not mistaken restoring the long standing version of the article. I support that. Springee (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Around half" is factual and handily avoids the need to keep the exact number up-to-date. @Ianmacm: I appreciate your concern about statistics, however we as editors are not hand-picking statistics to support a certain conclusion. Instead we're following reliable sources which overwhelmingly tell us that this is indeed the relevant statistic. –dlthewave ☎ 14:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is it will only be true at the time of publication. In fact everyone of the sources we use is now out of date. So (as I said) this avoids the need for constant re-writes and does reflect the RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this consensus was indeed reached I apologize for changing it. I was not aware that this issue had been debated before-- it seemed from the references that "around half" had been rounded up to include the Orlando shooting which did not use an AR-15. That said, my other change, making it clear that it was "14 out of 93 sampled mass shootings" instead of "14 out of 93 mass shootings" is valid. The reader may be mislead into thinking that only 93 mass shootings have occurred, or that 14/93 is an approximation of a fraction of a much larger sample of data. Looking at only 93 mass shootings when hundreds occur per year is not a full picture. Zortwort (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Slatersteven:, you say it's not 4, list out 4, and then say that list comprises 5 shootings in your first paragraph here. How is it not 4? Perhaps I've misread what you're saying, but it is certainly 4 shootings. The only issue here is whether it is excessive work to fix the number if another occurs, but these events are rare enough to begin with and no doubt there will be focus on the article if another one does. I don't see how pessimism about the possibility of another mass shootings motivates a factual miscommunication. Zortwort (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OPps your correct, my mistake. It had been 5 (or was it 6) and I miscounted when I OP's.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have an opinion one way or another but I will say the edit summary made me laugh.[1] I never got to "Undid Communist propaganda" before and I am a little sad about that. PackMecEng (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edit is here and it is the first time I have been accused of being a communist (which I'm not). As for the edit, the worry was that the quotation marks look like MOS:SCAREQUOTES, which should generally not be added. The sourcing is here and says "Only 14 of the 93 incidents examined by [Mayors Against Illegal Guns] involved assault weapons or high-capacity magazines." This is a direct quote and should not be modified. Now I know that some people don't like the terms "assault weapon" or "high capacity magazine". I'm not a great fan myself, and prefer the term semi-automatic rifle which is plainer and more descriptive. "High capacity magazine" is also vague and hard to define. These terms have been used mainly in the context of US gun control legislation such as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's inappropriate to use MOS:SCAREQUOTES here since they're not used by the source. Whether we like it or not, "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazine" have become commonly-accepted terms, and Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a platform to police their usage. –dlthewave ☎ 03:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be combined with the "Armalite AR-15" page. Any distractions such as criminal acts with the weapon should have a separate page. MelioraCogito (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No to the combination. The Armalite AR-15 is an M16 rifle prototype, not an AR-15 prototype. The trade name should not be confused with the type or weapon we are discussing in this article. There are, quite literally, hundreds to thousands (if you count home-built) of manufacturers of AR-15 pattern rifles. The Armalite model has a distinct history and needs to stay separate. As do the M16, M4, etc. This is the same for any other firearm. You don't put a Remington 17 in with an Ithaca 37 article. --Winged Brick (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think this article is supposed to be about the general AR-15 platform, whereas the Armalite AR-15 is about the original rifle. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it tack on the comment "they have been used in mass shootings" without any context or precise value? I could make the same claim about a firearm that was used in one mass shooting in theory. IE there has to have been a colonial era mass shooting (3 or more people) ergo muskets were used in "mass" shooting too although its not mentioned in the opening there.. We can and should include the prevalence of debate surrounding the firearm with regards to mass shootings but that doesnt mean it makes sense to just blurt something out like that unless all firearms ever used to commit mass shootings should be kept to that same standard of inserting with no transition that they have been involved in atleast one mass shooting before. I propose we either edit the line and make it reflect the content of the article better by having it focus on how the rifle was used in "several high profile mass shootings" or something to that degree unless we want to remove the comment entirely since it is poorly written and does not coincide to the standards of the rest of this website. Bgrus22 (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To some extent I agree. The real problem is semi-automatic rifles as a whole, not AR-15 style rifles. However, the prevalence of the AR-15 style rifle as the most common type of semi-automatic rifle in the United States has led to the controversy, as sourced from the NYT article.[2]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A number of reasons, there is the fact their use has garnered rather more attention. There is the fact they have been used in many (and most?) of the deadliest mass shootings. But we could change it to "Their use in mass shootings in the United States has been controversial". Which sums up the section.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, with the exception of the Virginia Tech shooting, nearly all of the high casualty mass shootings involved some sort of semi-automatic rifle. This is not only true in the United States, but also Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Norway etc. This is why allowing civilians to own semi-automatic rifles is controversial.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but that is also irrelevant to this article.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the sentence is odd and dangling. What about taking Slatersteven's suggestion and tweaking it a bit. Was:"Their use in mass shootings in the United States has been controversial". Well I suspect the use of any gun in a mass shooting is going to be controversial since mass shootings are always bad/controversial. What about "The rifles are controversial [in part] due to their use in mass shootings [in the United States]". I want group input with the bracketed sections. I'm suggesting "in part" because it otherwise implies that the only reason why these would be controversial is their use in mass shootings. That's probably not the only reason. "In the US" simply because AR-15's have been used in mass shootings outside of the US. Springee (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That works, at the end of the day (it can be argued) they are far more well known for this (at least outside the USA) than for "sporting".Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with Springee's wording as well. –dlthewave ☎ 18:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we are in agreement to not include "in the US", what about the "in part" qualifier? Springee (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since yet another IP removed the sentence in question I replaced it with the sentence we discussed above (including "in part" excluding "in the United States"). Springee (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Single use IP. No issue with the new text.Slatersteven (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Canada has banned the AR-15 following the 2020 Nova Scotia attacks, along with various other assault-style weapons.[3]; however investigators there have not been precise about what weapons were used, beyond saying that Wortman owned two semi-automatic rifles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seesm we can have a one sentence mention.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a one sentence mention but I do want to verify, do we know that the rifles in question are actually AR-15 style (as opposed to military style, semi-auto etc). I get that there is a fair chance that they are and just as so many self-adhesive strips are Band-aids, many military style, semi-automatic rifles are AR-15s. But not all of them. If the rifles actually used aren't or haven't been confirmed to be "AR-15's" then I think that should probably go in perhaps the Assault Weapons article. BTW, this is an issue I had when we created this article years back. AR-15s are a subset of what I would call military style, semi-automatic, rifles that fire an intermediate cartridge. I would have preferred to have say three articles where we now have two. One for the legal term "Assault Weapon" since it's legal definition varies by state and can include firearms that most wouldn't consider an "assault rifle". Next you have AR-15 style rifles. That would be an article about the generic AR-15 and would largely avoid the political aspects associated with the platform other than where it's specific to the AR-15 design (highly modular), receivers are relatively easy to fabricate since the working pressure of the firearm isn't contained by the receiver. The final category would be for the "military style, semi-automatic rifles". It would be the article that discusses what people generally think of as "assault weapons", "black scary rifles", "modern sporting rifles", [euphemistic] or [pessimistic] name here. This would include AR-15s but also AK pattern rifles, semi-auto versions of other modern military rifles etc. The advantage of this last bucket is then no one (myself included) has to say "well that's not an AR-15". Anyway, that's just my two cents. Springee (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian ban includes 1500 weapons[4] of which the AR-15 is only one. Wortman may not have used an AR-15, but the ban is notable anyway. The ban is also similar to the one introduced in New Zealand after the Christchurch mosque shootings.[5]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the ban is generic for 1500 weapons, it seems mention might be more appropriate in some broader cover article rather than in each of 1500 individual model articles. Aside from ambiguity about identification of the firearms used by Wortman, the cited article leaves some ambiguity about what is meant by the terms ban or banned. It seems unlikely this prohibition would apply to Canadian military personnel. What about police forces? Are there any other exceptions? Thewellman (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Err murder is illegal, solders killing in war is not.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it truly that simple? Some seem to have more tolerance for soldiers killing soldiers than for soldiers killing civilians, and object to the civilians killed as collateral damage when bullets are sprayed about. When it comes to arming the police with such weapons, civilians would seem to be the only targets. If "Trudeau said the weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time,"^[1] one might think Canadians should prohibit police use of such firearms unless the Canadian government envisions a scenario when killing a large number of Canadians in a short period of time would be a worthwhile goal. Thewellman (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start by saying I'm arguing against this but only to try to persuade. I wouldn't revert Slatersteven's proposed sentence even though I don't support it. Many states and countries have bans that apply or even name AR-15s. We don't list them. So far we have limited this article to only things that are really about AR-15 style rifles rather than stuff that generally applies because it applies to all military style, semi-auto rifles. So I don't support inclusion based on that hierarchical thinking. Springee (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don't support adding it as a new section. Absent a better integration in line with the discussion above I'll revert the recent change. Springee (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to clean up the recent Canada addition. I'm still not in support of the material but I figured it was better to clean up what was added rather than just revert. Springee (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well here is a clear link being made [[6]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather we not quote Trudeau's appeal to emotion political grandstanding. Springee (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It shows that there was (at least in his mind) a clear link, that this was aimed at AR-15's. Indeed this is exactly why its (supposed) use in crime is so important. It is used as a political platform, it affects national legislation. The AR-15 is more famous for being the infamous weapon of mass shooting than as a "sporting gun".Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it illustrates the point that "AR-15" has become the Kleenex of military style, semi-automatic rifles. However, that generalization of the term would be a different sub-topic. Perhaps a compromise we could have a generalized comment stating that AR-15's were mentioned by the backers of the bill. Springee (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you must.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about we see what others feel about it, then make a move (or not). I've appreciated the lack of edit drama on this article and respectful nature of the disagreements when they occur. Springee (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[This source] lists the weapons included in the most recent Canadian legislation. The "Ban" is described as Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or restricted. One of the nine major groupings is firearms of the designs commonly known as the M16, AR-10 and AR-15 rifles and the M4 carbine, and any variants or modified versions of them which probably supports including mention in this article; although it may be appropriate to address the exceptions specified by parts 47, 49 and 50 of the Canadian legislation. Inclusion of upper receivers in addition to previous emphasis on lower receivers may also be worthy of discussion. The regulation describes self-loading and detachable high-capacity magazines as the primary features of concern, which might warrant discussion of AR-15 style rifles using slide actions and smaller magazines with impediments to rapid replacement. It may also be appropriate to mention the two-year amnesty period, and possible exemptions for First Nations, law enforcement, and military personnel. Thewellman (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that the AR-15 is not one of 1500, it's more like 1400 of 1500-- there were around 10 (I don't remember the exact number) actual classes of firearms banned, and the 1500 figure accounts for the fact that they individually named every brand that the RCMP had registered in the country. Another thing, the Mini-14, M-14, etc. (also newly prohibited in Canada by the same OIC) articles do not mention this or anything pertaining to gun control, and in a sense it is more notable that they were banned as there are fewer countries that have done so than with the AR-15. It seems to me that any mention of specific instances of gun control in this article indirectly pushes the opinion that "AR-15s are uniquely bad and should be banned", and such facts should be kept to broader articles about gun control, for example Firearms regulation in Canada. Most other articles on firearms are constrained to the same sort of technical information, it just seems to show a certain bias when this one isn't. Zortwort (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a considerable rewrite to comply with WP:TALK. Please make specific proposals for improving the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before I attempt it, I thought I would ask what y'all think of adding a section on AR pattern pistols. As far as I can tell, there is not a separate article on this subject. I think that it makes sense to create a section in this article, rather than a new article, since AR pistols are variants of the same platform. Hist ed (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I can see what you mean, that's a tough one. AR pistols are a fairly popular configuration but difficult to categorize since this is the rifle article and they are no longer a rifle at that point. I suppose I would be fine with it here unless others have a better idea. PackMecEng (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest an internal link to a separate article in the See also section of this article. Considering the ongoing difficulty of clarifying the differences between military M16 rifles and civilian AR-15s, I anticipate the equally significant differences between rifle and pistol would cause unnecessary confusion and disruption of this article describing the AR-15 style rifle. Thewellman (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AR pistols, how are they then same?Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AR pistols use the AR-15 action and share many of the same parts but are more compact with shorter barrels. Basically, they're mechanically identical but take the form of handguns. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]