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

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

AP295 (talk | contribs)

1 user group
703 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Springee (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
19,581 edits
AP295 (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
703 edits
Line 212: Line 212:
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. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 20:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
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. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 20:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
:That[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AR-15_style_rifle&diff=995207762&oldid=995144388]] is a [[wp:POINT]]y edit and considered to be a type of disruption. Please self revert. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 21:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
:That[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AR-15_style_rifle&diff=995207762&oldid=995144388]] is a [[wp:POINT]]y edit and considered to be a type of disruption. Please self revert. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 21:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

:: 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. [[User:AP295|AP295]] ([[User talk:AP295|talk]]) 21:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:26, 19 December 2020

Template:Vital article

Template:Be calm

Template:Annual readership


Quotes

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]

Necessity of Two Separate Entries on the "Armalite AR-15" and "AR-15"?

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]

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.[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]
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]

Inclusion of new Canadian ban on rifles including AR-15s

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]


Coment

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]

AR pistols

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]
So not these [[13]] as they look like carbines or SMGs, not pistols?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Basically you take a standard AR upper and lower. Uses a short barrel and no stock then the ATF classifies them as pistols instead of rifles. They look like this with the buffer tube, which is totally NOT a stock, sticking out the back.[14] They are silly in my opinion, not really good for anything but they are basically a short-barreled rifle that does not require a tax stamp since it is technically a pistol. PackMecEng (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to include it here as a subtopic. If you talk to gun people they would probably consider it part of the larger AR platform since it uses an AR mechanism and family of parts. Legality aside (in the US there are a number of laws relating to converting an AR rifle to an AR pistol. However, for the most part (and I'm only speaking from what I've read) the difference is the length of the barrel and the lack of a shoulder stock. Thus, mechanically you could change an AR rifle into an AR pistol just by changing the barrel and butt stock. Legally it's not that simple but I don't know the details. Anyway, given the AR pistols are an obvious derivative of the rifle I would suggest inclusion here. My only concern would be finding good sourcing. Firearms in general is an area where most mainstream coverage is about firearms politics rather than the mechanical details. Sites that have that sort of detail are often going to fail a more strict reading of WP:RS even though they often are from people knowledgeable in the subject. Even that last part is somewhat hard. Who counts as an "AR-15" expert? Not likely to be an academic nor something published in the general press. But that's something we have to deal with when it comes up. Springee (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps adding the AR-15 pistol information to this article because of mechanical similarities would be a good opportunity to separate the Modern Sporting Rifle redirect into a separate article describing those versions of the AR-15 platform specifically designed to avoid objectionable military features while retaining advantages useful as a sporting rifle. Thewellman (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I can support such a content fork, its a marketing term.Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really like the "modern sporting rifle" term. When trying to discuss this topic informally I'm more likely to refer to them as "black scary rifles" or "what most people think of as an assault weapon". I think there is a legitimate justification for splitting off discussions of "black scary rifles"/modern sporting rifles vs AR-15 pattern rifles and their decedents. In my head a BSR/MSR page would talk about AR-15s as well as semi-auto versions of the AK pattern rifles and other rifles that marketed to the same part of the gun buying public. This is the article where I would include the politics related to civilian ownership of AR-15s and other BSR/MSR. The AR-15 style rifle page could be refined to specifically focus on fire arms based on the AR-15 design including some of the derivation rifles. My reasoning is that most of the politics associated with people owning an "AR-15" also apply to a civilian owned AK or other magazine feed semi-auto etc. Yes, "AR-15" is almost used generically when people talk about civilian ownership etc. Conversely, those who are interested in the specific mechanics and rules compliant variations (with no discussion of their moral merits) would do so in a separate article. <PB>I say that is what I would like to see but I'm not sure how to do it. First, I don't know how one would keep the "Assault Weapons (generic class of fire arms)" separate from the current Assault Weapon (legal definition) articles. I'm not sure could easily source enough good, non-self published sources to fill the topic and I can't even think of a name for the topic that doesn't conflate the legal definition of Assault Weapon with the generic use I'm envisioning nor one that avoids the overly euphemistic (MSR) or overly snarky (BSR). Additionally I'm not sure how we would draw a line between "AR-15 variant" and no longer AR-15 variant but clearly using some off the shelf parts. It would be come very messy and that's before someone inevitability decides that my structure is "an attempt to whitewash". Springee (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the decision is made to include these firearms as a subtopic of this article about rifles, I suggest that subtopic be entitled short-barreled rifles in accordance with User:PackMecEng's accurate assessment of their origin, despite the (possibly temporary) United States regulatory determination of their status as pistols. Thewellman (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2020 (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[[15]] 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]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F995217745