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

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

Waleswatcher (talk | contribs)

1 user group
3,375 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 239: Line 239:
::So how about some RS supporting it?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
::So how about some RS supporting it?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
::Also read [[wp:lede]], this would go in the body.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
::Also read [[wp:lede]], this would go in the body.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

== the lede is too technical ==

Specifically, the second paragraph. The lede certainly doesn't need to contain the AR-10 patent number, and probably not Eugene Stoner's name or really anything about the AR-10. On the other hand it probably ought to mention the connection to the M-16, which would address one of the comments above. How's this:

An '''AR-15 style rifle''' is any lightweight [[semi-automatic rifle]] based on the [[Colt AR-15]] design.

The Colt AR-15 is a semi-automatic version of the M-16 rifle sold for the civilian and law enforcement markets in the United States. While Colt retained the trademark of the AR-15 and is the sole manufacturer able to label their firearms as ''AR-15'', most of Colt's [[patent]]s for the rifle expired in 1977. Many firearm manufacturers currently produce rifles based on its design. <small>'''<span style="color:Olive">Waleswatcher</span>''' [[User_talk:Waleswatcher#top|''(<span style="color:green">talk</span>)'']]</small> 17:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:13, 7 January 2022

Template:Vital article

Template:Calm

Template:Annual readership

use in mass shootings as part of opening section?

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.[1]--♦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]
as someone who has never heard of these rifles except in the context of their frequent use in mass shootings, I think the almost throwaway sentence at the end feels out of place and doesn't give sufficient weight to the issue. I literally came to this page to find out why they're controversial; I think it would be worth (very briefly) summarising the basic arguments for and against. 92.17.144.186 (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was arrived at after torturous negotiations, I would be wary of changing it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out this:

[blockquote]A majority of firearm-related homicides in the United States involve the use of handguns.[77][78][79] According to a 2013 analysis by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 14 out of 93 mass shootings involved high-capacity magazines or assault weapons.[80] Nevertheless, AR-15 style rifles have played a prominent role in many high-profile mass shootings in the United States[81] and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.[82][/blockquote]

This seems to be linguistic propaganda that comes from an anti-gun and fear mongering agenda. AR-15's and it's calibers .223\5.56 in general are very common within the United States. 14 out of 93 mass shottings is surprisingly low for a common weapon and mass killings. The involvement of phrases like "high-capacity magazines" and "assault weapons" are also politicized weasal words normally used in anti-gun rhetoric. "High-capacity" has no real hard definition and "assault weapon" is normally used to describe semi-automatic rifles, which is the vast majority of rifles on th civilian market. The quote above also makes a demonstration of "we do have this analysis that says it's not used in many major crimes, but we're still going to say it's a very big deal anayway". If AR-15's were used in 50% or more, then I'd say it would be justified. As it sits, this section is editorialized to be biased in favor of making the AR-15 a choice weapon for mass shooters.

Please refrain from inserting your biases into this araticle. 73.120.83.83 (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question About Content

This article is supposed to be about the AR-15 style rifle, not gun control. Why then is this quote listed: "Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau commented "You don't need an AR-15 to bring down a deer".[93]"? His opinion as to whether anyone "needs" an AR-15 is irrelevant to this article. If the article were about gun control, quoting his opinion would be acceptable. I recommend that the quote be removed on this basis. Elysian13 (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because he says "AR-15", thus making it about the AR-15, not just gun control.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Currently I think we are giving undue mention to Trudeau's comments. I don't think inclusion of Canada's ban is DUE and the fact that Trudeau said "AR-15" as a generic term doesn't help. Above I wasn't willing to fight to keep the single sentence out of the article but I think what we have now is too long. While a case can be made to include Canada's prohibition on the rifle, there is no reason to include Trudeau's one line opinion quote. I think we should remove that. Springee (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
50-50 on this. The fact that Trudeau specifically mentioned the AR-15 is relevant, as it highlights the belief of the Canadian government that civilians do not need to have this type of weapon. As ever this may not please some people, but as I've said before, the real debate is about semi-automatic rifles as a whole, not specific models.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we were saying something like (and I'm not suggesting this specific text), "In 2020 Trudeau passed an executive order [not sure if it was literally an exectutive order] banning AR-15 and other semi-automatic rifles.[citations]", I would be OK with it. My issue is quoting Trudeau's specific statement which is nothing more than a politician grand standing. Trudeau isn't a firearms expert so his opinion as to which rifles are suitable or needed for hunting is irrelevant. "Not needed" for hunting also wasn't the reason for the ban. Presumably Trudeau was predisposed to banning this class of rifles and did so when a shooting provided the politically expedient opportunity. Springee (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should not be in this article, but Trudeau knows damned well it's a ridiculous thing to say. It's a dog-whistle to incite people who are pro-gun-rights. It would not appear to be an unreasonable statement to someone who doesn't know either way, but don't assume Trudeau speaks out of naive ignorance. Politicians exist to manufacture and reinforce polarization and partisan disagreement among the public. Once the argument is about "who needs what" for this or that, or which of 50 different made-up genders get to use which bathroom, you're no longer talking about the state's monopoly on the use of force to defend its self-interests, much less central banking or any other material issue. And this is why public discourse has taken a nosedive in recent years. It's like watching a continual trainwreck. So no, this asinine sentence should not be in this article and we should not even dignify it by arguing over it. AP295 (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really a level of discourse befitting the world's largest encyclopedia and repository of human knowledge in the 21st century? In the age of information? It's shameful and profoundly disappointing. AP295 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See wp:soap.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right back at you. A measured and civil discussion over something ridiculous is still propaganda, and I don't think I'm out of line by pointing out how loony it is on a talk page. AP295 (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes you are, discussion has to be wp:civil. Nor do you get to dismiss user's views as ridiculous or propaganda. I can't support something that reads like it trying to right great wrongs.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see your objection in time. I removed the sentence from the article but feel free to undo it if we haven't reached a consensus. One thing I've noticed about Wikipedia is that, under a sufficiently liberal interpretation, the rules prohibit just about everything. I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion about the article, and it's hard to AGF when people invoke Wikipedia's rules instead of addressing the point I'm trying to make. AP295 (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have. I invoked the rules because your argument is based upon things like "50 different made-up genders get to use which bathroom", not as far as I can see anything to with policy or imprv9ing the article, beyond POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, my objection of 20 August 2020 still stands.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pray tell, why does Trudeau's offhanded comment belong in an encyclopedic entry? It's merely his opinion, and I see no reason to include it here except to provoke readers who may not share his opinion. AP295 (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because the leader of a nation thought it was relevant to the passing of a law. Nor do I see how it "provokes" anyone, and it being provocative is not a valid reason for exclusion, we are not wp:censored so as not to offend people. If RS think it is note worthy so do we.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not belong in Trudeau's article? Or Firearms regulation in Canada? Or preferably nowhere because it's obvious political agitprop, especially in the context of this article. AP295 (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It might well belong in all of them, but that does not mean it does not belong here. As to "agitprop", irrelevant, as this is neither art nor literature. Nor is your assumption it is "agitprop" a valid reason for exclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So this has been up for a while and I haven't seen much in the way of new news on the matter. I think we should remove Trudeau's quote from the article. Springee (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be much support here for its presence in the article. Looks like this section has been up for a few months. A consensus has been reached, so I'll remove it. AP295 (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trudeau's quote isn't massively important. It is important that Canada had a major overhaul of its gun laws after the 2020 Nova Scotia attacks, which banned semi-automatic rifles including the AR-15.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, but we also need a valid reason to exclude it, not just wp:idontlikeit.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS says we need a valid reason to include it. While the law does impact AR-15's it also impacts basically any other gun that generically are called assault weapons. Trudeau could have just as easily said, "you don't need a Mini-14/AK/etc to shoot a deer." He appears to have used AR-15 as a generic yet easily identifiable term just as one hears the name Porsche and instantly associate a sports car (vs an SUV or sedan). If we were just saying Trudeau banned the weapons by name I would find that better but instead this is repeating political grandstanding. Springee (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ian and Springee's take. Levivich harass/hound 19:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Superb contribution. Insightful, completely out of left field. AP295 (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will bow out now, as we are just going round in circles. I have seen nothing that addresses the reason for inclusion, and until I see something based on more than an assumption its leftist propaganda I will oppose removal.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven It amounts to unsolicited polemic in the context of a non-political article like this. AP295 (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It amounts to unsolicited polemic in the context of a non-political article like this. And if this is not a valid reason for its removal, I do not see how Wikipedia can maintain any pretense of being an objective, neutral source of information and not an instrument for disseminating state-sponsored agitprop. Please, keep it in the political articles. AP295 (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really the entire section Use in crime and mass shootings belongs to the category of unsolicited polemic. The average American is bombarded with political agitprop on a daily basis. Constantly antagonized. If someone wants to know about "mass shootings", they'll visit that article. If someone wants to know about AR-15s, they'll visit this one. It's a blatant attempt to influence public opinion and reinforce polarization through FUD. It borders on psychological abuse. AP295 (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our grandfathers and great grandfathers owned, fought, and hunted with M1 Garands. Semi-automatic rifles (good heavens). It was never a problem until columbine and the mass media coverage that incident received. Murder became "gun violence". Mind-numbing drugs became "medicine". It's a phenomenon affected entirely by linguistics, perception, and genetics. Monkey see, monkey do. Forced cultural decay, and the selfish people who facilitate it. AP295 (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest removing Trudeau's comment in the absence of demonstration of Trudeau's credentials as a reliable source about deer hunting.Thewellman (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have you know Trudeau is a legendary big game hunter. A modern day Allan Quatermain. AP295 (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could suggest where one might find reliable sources documenting his experience or knowledge on subject of humane and effective killing of game animals? Thewellman (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He's the leader of a nation! Of course he knows what he's talking about. Show some god damned respect. AP295 (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do a fun thought experiment, shall we? Trudeau's comment pertains to hunting, so let's see how it looks when we move it to the appropriate section:

==Hunting== Many hunters prefer using AR-15 style rifles because of their versatility, accuracy, wide variety of available features, and wide variety of calibers (see below).[1] Collapsible stocks are convenient for hunters who pack their rifles into remote hunting locations or for length of pull adjustments to fit any sized hunter.[2] Construction with lightweight polymers and corrosion-resistant alloys makes these rifles preferred for hunting in moist environments with less concern about rusting or warping wood stocks. Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau commented "You don't need an AR-15 to bring down a deer".[7] Positioning of the AR-15 safety is an improvement over traditional bolt action hunting rifles. Many states require hunters to use reduced-capacity magazines.[3] If a hunter misses with a first shot, the self-loading feature enables rapid follow-up shots against dangerous animals like feral pigs or rapidly moving animals like jackrabbits.[1] Hunters shooting larger game animals often use upper receivers and barrels adapted for larger cartridges or heavier bullets. Several states prohibit the use of .22 caliber cartridges like the .223 Remington on large game.[4][5][6]

More likely to provoke laughter than irritation. If Trudeau's comments on deer hunting are to be included, I must insist we should put them in the "hunting" section. AP295 (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That[[2]] is a wp:POINTy edit and considered to be a type of disruption. Please self revert. Springee (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you say. If Trudeau's comment about deer hunting doesn't make sense in the context of the hunting section, then why should it make sense in the section about mass shootings and crime? It doesn't, or rather it shouldn't. But here we are having a conversation about this ridiculous sentence, as if it weren't mindless polemic. AP295 (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very familiar with Slatersteven and his leftist propaganda and stonewalling. I've lost count of how many times he has reverted my deletions and edits of POV violations. Here, he pulls his usual ploy of claiming something is relevant merely because some leftist said something about the topic. Statements by leftists about AR15s are OPINIONS, not facts, and those opinions do not become facts worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia entry by converting it to a fact by saying "Lefty McLeftist said ARs are bad." Slater and people like him have zero intellectual honesty, they violate and skirt the rules, call in their friends for assistance in a fake "consensus." Consensus does NOT mean a majority. It means that there exists no reasonable disagreement about anything in the entry. In other words, it is something everyone can live with.

Like every other contentious entry on Wikipedia, leftists have polluted it with their propaganda. Rmmiller44 (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not some, lots and not just leftists. So please lay off the invcivility. I have not questioned your motives, do not question mine.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop inserting this obvious political bias into the article

I would like to point out this:

[blockquote]A majority of firearm-related homicides in the United States involve the use of handguns.[77][78][79] According to a 2013 analysis by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 14 out of 93 mass shootings involved high-capacity magazines or assault weapons.[80] Nevertheless, AR-15 style rifles have played a prominent role in many high-profile mass shootings in the United States[81] and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.[82][/blockquote]

This seems to be linguistic propaganda that comes from an anti-gun and fear mongering POV. AR-15's and it's calibers .223\5.56 in general are very common within the United States. 14 out of 93 mass shootings is surprisingly low for a common weapon and in regards to mass killings. The involvement of phrases like "high-capacity magazines" and "assault weapons" are also politicized weasel words normally used in anti-gun rhetoric. "High-capacity" has no real hard definition and "assault weapon" is normally used to describe semi-automatic rifles, which is the vast majority of rifles on the civilian market. Except the people who commonly use "assault weapon" generally confuse (intentionally or not) black polymer firearms as something extra deadly. The quote above also makes a demonstration of "we do have this analysis that says it's not used in many major crimes, but we're going to intentionally ignore it and say it is a very big deal and a scary gun anyway". If AR-15's were used in 50% or more (no, the "10 deadliest shootings" reference don't count) of all shootings then I'd say it would be justified. As it sits, this section is editorialized to be biased in favor of making the AR-15 "a choice weapon for mass shooters" as one of the references puts it. The first part of the paragraph contradicts these other references and the article is written as if that should be ignored.

Please refrain from inserting your biases into this article and stop reverting my edits. 73.120.83.83 (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

We are not, we are inserting what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article currently reads like it's inserting a fact, and then followed immediately by fear mongering commentary as if that's fact as well which contradicts the previous fact. These references here come from politically Left and generally anti-gun resources like ABC and the BBC, so it's not a neutral perspective or bias. This section needs to be rewritten without the "AR-15's are a choice weapon for mass shooters", because it's factually not. 73.120.83.83 (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"These references here come from politically Left and generally anti-gun resources" Nonsense. We do not rely on "neutral sources". Per the policy on Biased_or_opinionated_sources:
  • "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Dimadick (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're intentionally adding sources that contradicts actual facts like how AR-15's are used in a very small minority of gun crimes and a minority of mass shootings. Why even bother adding in "AR-15's are the choice weapon of mass shooters" unless you willingly want to deceive other users? 73.120.83.83 (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No we say just that and also say how RS present them. We do not say "AR-15's are the choice weapon of mass shooters" we say "and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.", which is a fact they have been.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A federal judge, who compares an AR-15 to a Swiss Army knife, overturns California's ban on assault weapons This is in the news today and may be worth adding to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section on mass shootings is leftist propaganda in violation of POV. Every type of weapon has been used in mass shootings, and the AR15 is used no more than any other weapon. Rifles are rarely used in any crimes, and ARs are only a fraction of those.

The section is also irrelevant. No one would put a section called "Use of cars in drive by shootings" in an encyclopedia entry on cars. Leftist bias in entries, reversion of changes removing this POV, stonewalling of discussion, dog piling, and failure to gain consensus is rampant all across wikipedia. It has become a propaganda arm for the democrat party. Rmmiller44 (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it is also one of the things RS talk about, a lot. So we do.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@slatersteven

You consider every leftist politician and pundit to be a RS. Let me say this again: those people are expressing political opinions and propaganda, not relevant facts. You saying, "They said X about AR15s" and providing a source for them saying X about AR15s does NOT convert their opinions into an encyclopedic fact.

This is an encyclopedia entry about a physical object. The entry needs to stick to FACTS about that object and not peoples opinions about it.

No gun owners or gun rights advocates are making changes to this entry extolling the virtues of this gun, e.g. "Senator Gunny McGunnut said that the AR15 is the greatest protection of liberty ever built."

There is no symmetry here. I and others are trying to maintain the intellectual integrity and neutral POV demanded by Wikipedia standards. You and your leftist ilk are attempting to turn this entry into gun control propaganda. Rmmiller44 (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the sources we use are not RS take it here wp:rsn. Nor is a political opinion irrelevant, far from it, they are often lawmakers (and in some countries the use of AR-15's has led to their actual banning). We also do not say it is a fact, we say "people have said this". As to " we do not discus the weapons virtues", well yes we do such as "Many hunters prefer using AR-15 style rifles because of their versatility, accuracy, wide variety of available features, and wide variety of calibers (see below)".Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sophistry. By your argument, literally anything would be justified for inclusion if any politician said anything about it.

Versatility and accuracy are PHYSICAL FEATURES of the gun as opposed to say bolt action rifles.

As an experiment, I might just add a section gushing praise for the AR15 by some politician and watch as you or your ilk delete it.

You're awash with justifications for your propaganda. I'm deleting that shit. Go ahead and make something of it. Rmmiller44 (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rmmiller44, I think the problem here is a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia. If we had a benevolent dictator editor they might decide that this whole article should spend more time on the operating characteristics of the gun, decide that a few of the experts on some of the firearms websites are the clear experts we should be quoting for technical information, including asking direct questions. We also might decide that some of the media articles that attack the AR-15 conflate features that are common to other, non-AR rifles (say the Mini-14, AK pattern, other 5.57 based semi-autos etc). We would then put gun politics related questions in a different yet linked article. The problem, and this is a problem on many articles, not just here, is that we don't have a benevolent editor/dictator to tell us the right balance. Right or wrong, the way we try to decide what should go in and in what amount is the wp:NPOV policy. It largely says, how much do reliable source (the Wikipedia definition wp:RS) talk about the subject and in what capacity. Most mainstream sources talk about AR-15's in context of crime, legality/morality of ownership, and why people want to own them. They don't speak nearly as much about the mechanical/operational details. Sadly those are often best found by finding specialist websites. Exactly the sort of websites that Wikipedia asys should be avoided (we have no way to know which are truly experts vs idiots). Sadly that can mean that a true expert might have less voice vs a writer from the Huffington Post who has never picked up a gun and assumes they are all evil. This is simply how Wikipedia operates. It's not perfect but it's hard to think of a way to fix it that won't end up making other problems worse. Please understand the inclusion of firearms crime on the pages about firearms has been a contested topic (see here [[3]]) and it has been hard to find a balance between those who think we over vs under emphasize crime in these articles. Springee (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ERr, I have never said we have to include the opinions of politicians, I have talked about media coverage. In fact (as far as I can see) the only inclusion of the opinions of politicians is the opinion of the organization "Mayors Against Illegal Guns", which is used to say they are not in fact that commonly used in mass shootings.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing for that to be removed?Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lede

I think it would make sense to mention that it's like the military rifle in the lede. As someone who doesn't know much about guns, that would be much more meaningful than "Eugene Stoner" and "Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation", which are effectively meaningless to me. Benjamin (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Such a statement would be unproductively divisive but relatively obvious, because all rifles are like military rifles in many respects. I suggest the more useful part of the description of non-military rifles is how they differ from military rifles. The lede includes links for readers unfamiliar with the terms you mention. Thewellman (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary because virtually all semi-automatic rifles were designed with military use in mind.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the AR-15 basically the civilian equivalent of the M4? Benjamin (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The two rifles share a common ancestor, as described by the Armalite AR-15 link, but they have evolved to meet very different goals, similar to the way the original Willys MB has evolved into the Humvee for military purposes and sport utility vehicles for civilian purposes. I would question the purpose of describing sport utility vehicles as the civilian equivalent of a Humvee. Thewellman (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SUVs are obviously much more different. Benjamin (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure we ned this, nor am I sure how we would word it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We kind of have it by saying the design is based on the ArmaLite AR-15. Perhaps that could be expanded to say the "based on the Armalite AR-15 which was also the progenitor of the US military as the M-16" or similar. I'm not sure how, at a high level, you would say it's like the M-16 et al. Springee (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where?

This is a valid point, we need to say where it's considered what, many places do not even allow this type of gun.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify the pronouns "it's" and "what," and define "this type?" Many places restrict ownership of virtually any firearm. The wide variety of accessories available for the AR-15 lower receiver may be viewed differently by differing jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions restrict ownership of the AR-15 lower receiver itself, while others limit upper receivers, specific cartridges, self-loading mechanisms, detachable magazines, magazine capacity, barrel length, overall length, sound suppressors, bayonets, pistol grips, or folding or detachable shoulder stocks in either the AR-15 or any firearm. Ownership restrictions may also vary according to the age, qualifications, profession, citizenship or political status of individuals. It may be more appropriate to create or augment separate articles to unambiguously clarify legal perspectives of these different features for different individuals in different jurisdictions. Thewellman (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The tag was placed due to us saying in our voice that "When manufactured with a barrel length less than 16 inches and without a shoulder stock, it is legally considered to be a pistol as opposed to being a short-barreled rifle", but is that true of all jurisdictions?Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should insert something like under US federal laws. The law regarding barrel length is not specific to the AR-15. US law treats "rifles" differently than "pistols" (not sure if "pistol" is the legal term) and the restrictions are generally less strict with regards to possession of rifles (who can have them and where). Barrel length was one of the the criteria used to decide what is a rifle vs pistol and 16" was set as the demarcation length. I don't see an issue mentioning this as something specific to US law but it should be done in a way that makes it clear this is a general law, not something that applies specifically to AR-15 style rifles. I don't know the best way to source that without possibly tripping OR concerns absent finding a source that specifically says as much. Springee (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"UNder US law cWhen manufactured with a barrel length less than 16 inches and without a shoulder stock, it is legally considered to be a pistol as opposed to being a short-barreled rifle"?Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes [not a legal expert on this subject]. When made without those features the gun is considered a pistol and thus subject to laws related to pistols vs rifles and I think the SN can never be converted from pistol to rifle after that point. If made just with a short barrel it becomes a Short-barreled rifle which requires registration with the US BATF. A side affect of this rule is things like the debates over pistol braces since they look like a shoulder stock and could be used like one even though "they aren't". EDIT: I think I mistook your suggestion as a question about the subject. I think that could be OK. I assume that is supported by the source. I think we can take application of US law to be implied. Springee (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have talked the liberty of losing it out of the lede, as I am not sure that is the right place for it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. I don't see a need to have it in the lead. I would see that as a specialty case. Springee (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Political bias

"The rifles are controversial in part due to their use in high-profile mass shootings." This is nothing but anti-gun rights bias and political opinion. This has no fact in it and is all opinion. It violates the neutral point of view rule in favor of fearmongering. This should be removed from the article due to being all opinion and no fact.BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times are perfectly reliable, and that AR-15 style rifles have been used in numerous mass shootings is not opinion, but fact. FDW777 (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FDW777, I'd love to read that article and refute it, but it is locked behind a paywall. And having been used in 25% of mass shootings (according to the Wikipedia page "Mass shooting in the United States") is not numerous at all. If you were to see 100 donuts, namely 48 glazed donuts, 14 chocolate donuts, 25 old-fashioned donuts, and 13 strawberry donuts, would you call the old-fashioned donuts "numerous"?BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's your problem not mine. Pay to read it. FDW777 (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but it's what a lot of RS say. I do not in fact recall any other gun they get the same degree of coverage, or in fact, had had the same impact on legislation around the world. Yes they are very controversial, for the reason said.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, the controversy is undeserved and is entirely subjective. They are not controversial to a large minority of the population. And Wikipedia should be defaulting to objective facts and viewpoints, not just viewpoints held by the majority.BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We go with what RS say, not with what "a lot of people" think. A lot of people think all kinds of BS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1. As I've said before, the real issue is allowing civilians to own semi-automatic rifles. The AR-15 style rifle attracts most of the controversy because it is the most common type of semi-automatic rifle owned by civilians in the United States.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are letting your political biases get in the way of an apolitical Wikipedia. BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ianmacm, that is not the reason and is, again, entirely subjective and an anti-gun rights view.BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV means we represent all viewpoints in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources, and the controversy surrounding these guns has received so much coverage that it would be an NPOV violation not to include it. I think the Criminal Use section does a good job of summarizing the controversy from multiple viewpoints. –dlthewave ☎ 12:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dlthewave, that is a falsehood. There are no pro-gun arguments anywhere in this page. In the past, AR-15 style rifles have been used to stop mass shootings, and that is shown nowhere in this article.BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, give an RS saying that an AR-15 had been used to stop a mass shooting from happening.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven, here's an article: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/defensive-ar-15-uses/ #2 and #6 are examples of this.BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I said RS (please read wp:rs), and 2 is a robbery, not the kind of mass shooting we are talking about in the article. In 6 (the Sutherland Springs church shooting) 22 people died, it did not prevent it (hell reading that article it sounds like the killer was leaving already).Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BurritoQuesadilla, I think many of the articles that are critical of AR-15's do come at it from a anti-firearm perspective and often "blame the tool" rather than the shooter. They also frequently conflate "AR-15" for what are often generically called (in political discussions) "assault weapons". That said, we can not deny that many RSs have discussed AR-15s and their use in mass shootings. For that reason the topic should be somewhere on Wikipedia. Personally I would like to consolidate the "AR-15" and "Other similar rifle" political topics into a single article. The motivation isn't POV fork, rather it's that currently a discussion related to reactions related to a crime committed with an AK-pattern rifle or other "similar but not technically AR-15" isn't here. Rather this topic is scattered across a number of articles. I would like it in one spot as it could be both more comprehensive and balanced. However, until that happens, this content is certainly DUE somewhere and, absent a parent article, here is an appropriate place. So long as it is here I think what we have is impartial and a reasonable consensus. Springee (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use in self defence

It has been suggested we need a section (or line) about the use of the weapon in self-defense. Should we have such a section (assuming it can be sourced to wp:rs)?Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right now all I can see US having (at best) is

"Gun rights activists have claimed it is regularly used for self-defense ".

Though I am unsure where to place it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely need to the reliable sources for this first, and work out the wording before it's added to the article. (I just reverted an attempt to add it without a source.) BilCat (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am in definite support of such a line. BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So how about some RS supporting it?Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also read wp:lede, this would go in the body.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the lede is too technical

Specifically, the second paragraph. The lede certainly doesn't need to contain the AR-10 patent number, and probably not Eugene Stoner's name or really anything about the AR-10. On the other hand it probably ought to mention the connection to the M-16, which would address one of the comments above. How's this:

An AR-15 style rifle is any lightweight semi-automatic rifle based on the Colt AR-15 design.

The Colt AR-15 is a semi-automatic version of the M-16 rifle sold for the civilian and law enforcement markets in the United States. While Colt retained the trademark of the AR-15 and is the sole manufacturer able to label their firearms as AR-15, most of Colt's patents for the rifle expired in 1977. Many firearm manufacturers currently produce rifles based on its design. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F1064299211