Talk:AR-15–style rifle/Archive 2

Use of "assault rifle" to describe these guns
We have an odd situation that defies logic. My addition of "assault rifle" has been deleted twice. This is the generic, "main", article for all the guns of this type, and they are all referred to in myriad RS as "assault rifles" and included in Category:Assault rifles, yet THIS article is excepted. Its absence in the category is noticeably odd.

Please explain the logic in that. Do you really want to enter Streisand effect territory and have all of Wikipedia descend on this article for a huge RfC which forces the issue? The article will rightly see a huge increase in sourcing, and a new section, just on that topic. Do you really want that, or will you quietly allow it to happen? I fear for the poor editor who is responsible, because the NRA won't be happy that they have drawn attention to the issue. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Do you really want to enter Streisand effect territory and have all of Wikipedia descend on this article for a huge RfC which forces the issue? The article will rightly see a huge increase in sourcing, and a new section, just on that topic. Do you really want that, or will you quietly allow it to happen?" - that is, um... an interesting take on collaborative discussion and consensus editing. What would the end result be of the 'Streisand-option'? "Huge increases in"... what? Content, sourced or not, that will put undue weight on part of the article and throw the neutrality of the whole page right out of balance? If I were the "poor editor" called upon to make that choice, I would say "f*ck Streisand and the horse she rode in on and do your worst." But that's just me. - the WOLF  child  08:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * An assault weapon is, generally speaking, a semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip and a detachable magazine -- for example, an AR-15 style rifle. An assault rifle looks quite similar, but is capable of automatic fire -- i.e. it can fire multiple rounds when the trigger is pulled one time.  The two terms are very often confused or conflated, but, to provide our readers with accurate information, we are maintaining the distinction here.  I'm under the impression that this has been generally agreed upon, though I could not easily provide a link to the relevant discussions. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. I should add that the term "assault weapon" is itself somewhat controversial. Some people think that it was promulgated with the purpose of promoting more restrictive firearms regulations.  — Mudwater (Talk) 01:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's a lede worth noting:

It is clearly about certain types of "semi-automatic firearms" (fortunately not my good old Ruger 10-22 ). In case you wonder about my weapons and hunting creds, I have owned a Ruger Blackhawk convertible 9mm/.357, a Colt Python .357, and Smith and Wesson .38, a Sako .30-06, and two Ruger 10-22s. Read my article about Reindeer hunting in Greenland. I have shot 16 deer, four in one day being the best, and two other times three in one day. A bolt action .30-06 with maximum 5-shot capacity works fine for hunting. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The article is about semi-automatic rifles, not the military select fire models. That means it by default is not about assault rifles.  That sources that aren't experts on firearms misuse the term doesn't mean we should.  Springee (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The law (see above) is about certain types of semi-automatic rifles for civilian use, specifically the ones which are the subject of this article. All of them are in the Category, so this article should too. We must follow the preponderance of RS, not the protectionist literature and wordings from the NRA and sympathizers. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The law above says "Assault Weapons" not "Assault Rifles". The article should be (if there is one) in the category of "Assault Weapons" but not "Assault Rifles". Also, please don't use phrases like "protectionist literature and wordings from the NRA and sympathizers".  It can be read as not assuming good faith. Springee (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It says "Semi-automatic firearm", and the law and article mention rifles. If this article describes a type of rifle which all the RS used in this article prove is exempted from the law because they are somehow different, then the title of the article should be changed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And no where does it say "Assault Rifle". It does say "Assault Weapon".  Springee (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The correct term for this rifle is assault weapon, not assault rifle. The assault rifle version of this is the M16, not the AR-15. Another RS to look at for the distinction is the AP style manual here. PackMecEng (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Federal Assault Weapons Ban covers both terms and also covers the exact rifles made for private citizens described in THIS article....but...if the term you'll accept is "assault weapon", then let's use "assault weapon" in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would rather we stick with the more technical description for the intro part. After we get past the intro (but still in the lead) we can say that legally these are often classified as assault weapons.  "Assault Weapon" is a very nebulous term that has many definitions.  The only one that has been passed into US law doesn't apply to many AR-15 variants (basically all that were sold from 1994 to 2004).  Instead we should leave it with only what is is indisputably, a semi-automatic rifle etc.  Springee (talk) 03:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Semi-auto is the most basic necessary criteria, among others. Putting it later in the lede would be okay. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The first line of the "terminology" section says "In 1956, a lightweight assault rifle was designed for military use by ArmaLite and designated the ArmaLite Rifle-15, or AR-15." The original AR-15 was certainly an assault rifle, since it was a select-fire rifle firing an intermediate cartridge. Since "assault rifle" is used in this sense to distinguish the military AR-15 from the semi-automatic, it doesn't make sense to refer to the semi-automatic version as an assault rifle as well, in the lead or elsewhere.
 * Also, I agree with Springee, the Colt AR-15 was legally defined an assault weapon, but other types of AR-15 style rifles were not defined as assault weapons, and continued to be sold under the federal ban. Additionally, "assault weapon" doesn't seem to have any generally accepted definition, as different laws vary in their definitions. A given rifle might be an assault weapon under Californian law, but not under New York law or under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (when it was active). Maybe it makes sense to discuss assault weapons bans legislation and how they affected AR-15 style rifles in the body of the article, or even to mention it in the lead, but I don't think we can say "AR-15 style rifles are assault weapons", since the two categories often do not overlap. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I fully support having some part of the article talk about the impact of the AW ban as well as how various state laws have impacted the design of AR based rifles sold legally in those states. Note this could turn very political so I would suggest keeping things as technical and fact based as possible.  Springee (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking through the list, Heckler & Koch HK416 and Barrett REC7 are described as assault rifles in their respective articles. This might be worth a mention in the article, but we shouldn't apply the term to the entire category. –dlthewave ☎ 13:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Ummm....everyone take a look at the article history. This was resolved a number of hours ago. It was moved further down in the lead and is qualified by "often".

It's still true that the article would be greatly improved with a section dealing with this obviously notable subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"assault-style"

 * Comment -- some sources use "assault-style" to describe these weapons, such as:
 * Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law, which states: "Assault-stile semiautomatic weapons are distinguished from others [semiauto wooden-stocked hunting rifles] in that they have large clips holding 20-30 bullets, are more compact in design, have barrels under 20 in, take intermedia sized cartridges,...] etc.
 * I think this ("assault-style") may be a way to bridge the common use of "assault" rifles vs military terminology, as described in the assault rifle article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "...they have large "clips" holding 20-30 bullets" - I don't see how we can consider this a source when they don't even know what they're talking about. And, I'm not clear on why there is this burning need with some people to add the word "assault" at all. The semi-auto only, civilian variant is not an "assault-anything" It was not designed and marketed for civilians to storm the beaches of anywhere or kick in doors and clear rooms. They are primarily for sport. Hobby target shooting, various amateur and professional competitions, collecting, and hunting (sport, pest-control and sustenance). In some cases, if necessary, self-defense, but even this is more of a personal choice than an intended commercial purpose.


 * This is one of the main reasons why the term "modern sporting rifle" was introduced, to separate the civilian variant from the law enforcement and military variants, with full-auto and 'burst' capabilities that are specifically intended for lethal use. It's terribly unfortunate that a small group of people have illegally mis-used these products, and with such tragic consequences, but that doesn't make them "assault-rifles", "assault-style" or "assault-" anything-else. Just because people in the media and government have chosen an incorrect name, whether it be deliberately or through ignorance, to help sensationalize and demonize this product, to get ratings, sell newspapers, push legislations, win elections, etc., etc.,... does not mean we need to lower our standards and intentionally make the same error.


 * When we have articles such as "Winston Assault Cigarettes", "Coors Assault Draft" (and Coors Assault Lite, less filling!), and the "Toyota Assault Prius", to "bridge" between articles about others products that have killed people, then we can talk about "civilian assault rifles". Until then, can we focus on building an encyclopaedia that is actually factual and neutral? - the WOLF  child  15:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Your comment seems like an attempt to "right great wrongs" and ignores the societal debates and massive RS coverage and use of the term. THAT is what we base our content on. Keep in mind that the creator of the AR-15 and his family do not believe that civilians should own this type of weapon. It was not created for civilian use, but with small moderations it is now the most popular rifle used for mass shootings. It has no legitimate use as a hunting weapon which other hunting rifles cannot serve as well or better. The rather sarcastic comment I heard the other day went something like this: "A man who feels the need to use an AR-15 as a hunting weapon is neither a man nor a hunter."
 * AR-15s are created for killing lots of people very quickly, IOW warfare. For hunting, a bolt action 5-shot weapon does the job perfectly well. That's been my experience in Greenland, where 5-shot bolt action is the maximum allowed. No semi-autos. One of my friends in Greenland shot all five members of a small flock of reindeer with such a weapon. He just shot the ones at the back of the flock first. That takes skill. The ones in front didn't realize what was going on before it was too late. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources that describe its use in target shooting, collecting, hunting, etc? This would be good information to add to the article. –dlthewave ☎ 19:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If I was planning on adding content to that effect to the article, I'm sure some sources wouldn't be difficult to find. But as I have no such plans at the moment, no. But if you're interested, I'm sure you find such sources with relative ease. - the WOLF  child  02:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"Your comment seems like an attempt to "right great wrongs"..." "...and ignores the societal debates and massive RS coverage and use of the term." ""THAT is what we base our content on." "Keep in mind that the creator of the AR-15 and his family do not believe that civilians should own this type of weapon" "It was not created for civilian use, but with small moderations - it is now the most popular rifle used for mass shootings." "It has no legitimate use as a hunting weapon" "which other hunting rifles cannot serve as well or better." "The rather sarcastic comment I heard the other day went something like this: "A man who feels the need to use an AR-15 as a hunting weapon is neither a man nor a hunter."" "AR-15s are created for killing lots of people very quickly, IOW warfare" "For hunting, a bolt action 5-shot weapon does the job perfectly well." "That's been my experience in Greenland, where 5-shot bolt action is the maximum allowed. No semi-autos." "One of my friends in Greenland shot all five members of a small flock of reindeer with such a weapon. He just shot the ones at the back of the flock first. That takes skill. The ones in front didn't realize what was going on before it was too late."
 * Says the guy that then immediately goes on very preachy, personal, unsupported, POV-ish anti-gun lecture.
 * This isn't about "societal debates". Articles about mass-shootings, firearms controversy and gun-control legislation all contain that "massive RS coverage" already. No one, (well at least not me) is trying to stifle any debates or hide any information about these issues
 * This is an encyclopaedia. Articles should be about the subject of the article. THAT is what we base our content on.
 * First off, Eugene Stoner died 20 years ago, so his current "beliefs" on the matter would be difficult to obtain. But as for his family, what do you expect them to say when reporters come banging on their door after a mass-shooting involving an AR-15? But regardless, their "beliefs" have nothing to do with Wikipedia's neutrality policy.
 * That is a text-book non-sequitur. It was created for the military, and like many, many other things (beyond counting, really), initially created for the military, it was adopted for civilian use. Haven't you ever watched Tactical to Practical? As for their "popularity" in mass-shootings... couldn't that be because of the way they are sensationalized by the media, politicians and gun-control advocates? Or that they are relatively inexpensive and there are so many of them? Chicken and the egg...
 * That is your opinion, and one that is clearly outweighed by fact.
 * huh?
 * Really? Well, why don't you put that right into the lead of the article? Oh, wait...
 * Yes... the ones created for the military certainly were created for just that. But you're confusing those with the civilian variants that are were re-designed and re-purposed for civilian use. For sport. For killing lotsa' paper targets, and food, and pests, (and, perhaps, the armed piece of shit that's trying to break into someone's house to steal, rape and/or murder). No firearms manufacturer has ever marketed an AR-15 for the purpose of mass-murder.
 * No disagreement here (except that I'm not really a proponent of hunting solely for sport.) But an AR-15 also "does the job perfectly well", perhaps even better in some cases. But at the end of the day, who are we to tell hunters what tools they should and shouldn't be hunting with?
 * No offence but... so what? (but I will say, if the AR-15 was allowed there, guaranteed some guys would use it. Then that would be part of "your experience" there as well, wouldn't it?)
 * Oh, great... another one of your personal little anecdotes. (Where do I begin?) Well, first off, this isn't the "Greenland Wikipedia" Next, your "friend" is not a reliable source. And lastly, wiping out an entire family of reindeer? You're actually bragging about that? I'm aware of the reindeer population issues there, and I'm sure that it was part of some cull and that all that meat went into people's freezers. But humans, with modern firearms, blasting away at a herd of dumb, peaceful herivores on an open tundra in not exactly up there with the guys on the list of Longest recorded sniper kills. Taking out armed, human, enemy combatants from 2km to 3.5km... THAT takes skill.

But all that aside, the maintaining of balance and neutrality of this, or any other firearms-related article, is where my interest in all this lays. Cheers - the WOLF  child  02:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * We're talking about whether or not "assault-style rifle" would be an acceptable middle ground. Any thought? –dlthewave ☎ 03:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not anti-gun, and I don't believe in killing animals for sport. All our hunting was strictly for food. Inuits, and others who live there, are not hunter-gatherers, but strictly hunters, and all for food. Reindeer/caribou is delicious venison. Try it sometime. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "I'm certainly not anti-gun" - Just anti-AR-15 apparently. - the WOLF  child  04:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, along with most Americans and RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Most"....? Riiiight... that's why it's sooo popular. And, I don't think you understand "Americans". As for "RS", I addressed that below. - the WOLF  child  15:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I AM American, and statistics show that most Americans are for banning these rifles in some fashion. Even most NRA members are for more gun control measures. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "I AM American" - yikes. That just makes your comments that much more questionable. - the WOLF  child  17:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please drop the personal attacks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What "personal attack"...? You made some grand claim that spoke for the "majority of all Americans", and when I took that, along with all your other comments here, into consideration, it gave me the impression that you perhaps had a misunderstanding of Americans (many on WP often do). You then replied that "You ARE American". OK, great... but based solely on that, I'm supposed to now blindly and completely accept everything you have to say on behalf of America? Sorry, but... no. That just leaves the "yikes" bit... if you find that word to somehow be a "personal attack", well... we'll have to agree to disagree. But all that aside, I am curious as to why you think it's ok to make accusations of WP:OWN, which can be considered WP:NPA if they're baseless, and you also seem to think it's ok to alter other people's talk page comments, which afaik, it's not. Lengthy tp sections often have breaks to make contributions easier, and since the break/slash sub-heading is directly above my comment, and directly reflects the content of my comment, I'll ask that you please leave it be, thank you. Now, you've set the tone here, my friend. However you want this discussion to proceed is up to you. You want to stay strictly on topic? Fine by me. You want to discuss the topic with some harmless, light-hearted banter (which considering the seriousness of this topic, it couldn't hurt to keep things light), is fine as well, but if you want to start involving policy, whether you're invoking it or breaking it, then you're on your own because I'm not interested. As I said, my main interest is keeping this article's content neutral, balanced and focused on it's subject, because afaic, right now it's failing on all three counts. - the WOLF  child  22:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Other disagreements aside, I would caution against putting too much stock in the claim that some majority wants something. This article illustrates the problem with asking people what they think about something when they often aren't well versed on the subject.  []
 * About two-thirds of the respondents described "assault weapons" as guns that fire rapidly, guns that can fire a large number of rounds without reloading, guns with a lot of "power," or guns used by the military. More than a quarter described them as "machine guns," "automatics," or the equivalent (e.g., "multiple rounds with just one pull of the trigger"). 
 * This link provides some of the answers to the question, what is an assault weapon []. Note that in the details of the poll their are conflicting answers.  This basically illustrates the issue with putting too much emphasis on what X% want when most are not familiar with the issue. Springee (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

"sporting style"

 * TBH, I thought I made my thoughts clear on that just above. But just the same, the civilian variant of the AR-15, which is the basis of this article, and all the semi-auto, AR-15 patterned rifles that are on the market now, are not "assault rifles", they are not "assault-style rifles", they are not "assault-"anything. The word doesn't belong here, and adding it, to (directly or indirectly) describe the civilian variant, semi auto AR-15 as "assault-style" would be UNDUE, WEIGHT. We already have articles about assault rifles and assault weapons, not to mention full-auto military variants of the AR-15, such as Armalite AR-15, M-16 rifle and M-4 carbine. This the subject of this article is intended for sporting use. If you look at the version of this page prior to February 14th, "assault" was only mentioned once (no link), and that was to distinguish the MSR (as it was titled at that point) from full-auto, military variants (plus there was a link in the 'See also' section). "Assault" is now mentioned three times (not counting the "See also" entry), all linked, with both "assault weapon" and the (long dead) Federal Assault Weapons Ban now noted in the lead, and "assault rifle" now in the opening sentence of the main body of the article. So the fact is, this page is already out of balance, and adding "assault-style" isn't a compromise, it's overkill (and that's not even taking into account the multiple additions of "mass-shooting" info). This is a "sporting-style rifle". Period.
 * And, quite frankly, I'm not sure why you are asking me this. Shouldn't you be pushing for a hold on any more of these controversial changes and additions, until your RfC is done? Wasn't that the purpose of the RfC in the first place? Meanwhile, this article has pushed past the point of informing about the AR-15, to demonizing it. - the WOLF  child  04:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What do RS say about AR-15 style rifles and assault weapons? That is what counts. Are you pretending they don't make that connection, whether it's right or wrong in your opinion? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just it. You seem to think the "connection" is what is important here, where I believe it's the "right or wrong" that actually matters most. - the WOLF  child  17:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there are several media sources, that we've long-recognized as RS, that refer to civilian ARs as "assault"-something. But how many of those are opinion pieces written with an anti-gun slant? Or are quoting someone with an anti-gun slant? What basis do they actually have to use the word "assault"? And, aren't we responsible to ensure that even if information comes from a typically recognized "reliable source", that it is still factually based and encyclopaedic? I'm sure that's in the RS policy, somewhere (I don't need to go hunting for it, do I? Please tell me you know what I'm talking about). Any misuse aside, this rifle is intended to be, and is marketed as, a sporting rifle. Not an assault rifle (or even an assault style rifle). There is a difference between "assault" and "sport" (and again, please tell me you know the difference). Trying to paint this rifle as an "assault"-anything in an encyclopaedia article is wrong and irresponsible, because that's not what it is. - the WOLF  child  04:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, we know "whether it's right or wrong in your opinion", but that's not what counts here. It's what RS say, and we base content on them, and our policies do not exclude opinions in RS. On the contrary. Sources, not editors' personal opinions, are the basis of our content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it's my opinion, that's what we're doing here after all, debating opinions. And yes, we use RS for content, but not blindly. - the WOLF  child  05:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the RfC is about something different. –dlthewave ☎ 04:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh I know what it's about. Adding info about mass-shootings to articles like this one, and while it drags on, with no end, and certainly no consensus in sight, a whole shit-ton of mass-shooting info has been piled onto this page. You started the RfC for a reason, so why you are silent on inappropriate editing taking place here? - the WOLF  child  05:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Mass Shootings section is very brief.
 * I generally don't consider good-faith edits to be inappropriate. If there's an objection to the content, we discuss it, and that's exactly what we're trying to do here. –dlthewave ☎ 05:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, I thought that was the purpose of the RfC. Yet, editors are adding content with a particular slant here without discussing it on the tp first, and even resorted to tag-team edit-warring to keep it in when another editor removed it (and at the same time, they tried to remove balanced, sourced content they didn't like). That should have initiated the BRD cycle, with discussion and consensus on whether to add their content, but instead one of them insisted the editor trying to remove it go and seek consensus for the removal! I mentioned this just above already, with diffs. That is not "good faith editing', it's not editing by consensus, the content is not neutral, it's disputed and therefore controversial, and yet it's still there, and now the only "discussions" I'm seeing is these editors insisting that even more WEIGHTy content being added. This is not how things are supposed to be done on WP.- the WOLF  child  15:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Various source make the distinction between the two, just because a few make a mistake does not mean we should repeat that mistake. It would be a detriment to our readers. PackMecEng (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * PackMecEng, you're onto something important. It sounds like the article should deal with "the distinction between the two", IOW it should have sections clearly labeled for each. That way the types which are not covered by the Assault Weapons ban law could be in one section, making it clear in what way they differ from those in the "other" section about "assault weapons" covered by the law.
 * This is, after all, the "main" article for the subject, so it should be MUCH larger and have several more sections which summarize all the subarticles related to these rifles, with a "main" link to each subarticle. The easiest method is to copy the lede from each subarticle into a section here. WP:SPINOFF describes how this would be a "2. Large summary style overview meta-articles which are composed of many summary sections." Currently this is a rather small article. It has great potential. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue I have with that is this article is about the civilian, semi-automatic versions only. None of which could reasonably be classified as assault rifle since none are automatic.PackMecEng (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * ec... PackMecEng, you are correct that a fully "automatic" mode option seems to be used for assault rifles, whereas these semi-automatic rifles are still classified as assault weapons. Therefore we should stick with the latter to avoid confusion. If we deliberately stick with "assault rifle" (or even "assault-style rifle") here, we'd be enshrining a red herring and creating confusion.


 * Here's the "assault weapon" lede, where the various terms are explained:


 * "Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud. Some firearms are specified by name. At the time that the now-defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban passed in 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use." The origin of the term has been attributed to legislators, gun control groups, the media, and the firearms industry itself.    It is sometimes conflated with the term "assault rifle", which refers to selective-fire military rifles that can fire in automatic and / or burst mode."


 * That the difference seems to be a "style" issue, rather than a purely "auto vs semi-auto" issue, a consensus can decide if we will use the "assault-style" terminology. If we choose not to use it, then we should just stick with the established consensus of "assault weapon", and we can add the qualifier that these semi-automatic rifles are "often" classified as assault weapons, as we do in the article. That allows for specific exceptions for certain models if RS and legal decisions have made such an exception for that particular model.


 * As usual, the bottom line is what RS and laws say, well knowing that they often conflict with the attempts by advocacy groups and fans to rebrand these rifles as "America's rifle" and "modern sporting rifles". Our job is to document both conflicting views, just as we do with any subject which involves controversy. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * From the quotes and sources you listed above semi vs auto is a clear defining difference between the two and since this article is about the semi version assault weapon would be the appropriate term. That said, this issue certainly seems to have sparked confusion, if linking to the assault weapon article is not enough for clarification between weapon and rifle. I could see the need for a small subsection detailing the difference. Though even if we did that, the appropriate thing to do would still use its proper designation throughout the article in referencing it which is assault weapon, and disregard assault rifle. PackMecEng (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Have a look at 's comment regarding these "sources". And no, we shouldn't use "assault weapon" to describe the subject of this article. There is already an Assault weapon article. This article is (or at least it was, and should be) about the semi-auto civilian variant of the AR-15 and it's intended purpose as a "sporting style rifle". When it's used as intended, in target shooting ("assaulting" paper targets) and competitions, it's not even being used as a "weapon". - the WOLF  child  19:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Should we remove the HK416 from the article, then? Dlthewave (talk) 15:50, March 5, 2018‎ (UTC)
 * Of course. It's a full-auto military variant. Not a sporting rifle used by civilians. - the WOLF  child  17:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Technically, the listing here at AR-15 Style Rifle doesn't show the HK416, instead it lists the MR223 (the semi-automatic version marketed to civilians). It might help if someone edited the link in the "List of models" section so that it points at the appropriate section in the HK article, seen here.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's actually listed as MR556. Thanks for catching that. I fixed the link. –dlthewave ☎ 02:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (@PackMecEng) Exactly! Thank you. (@BullRangifer) "This is, after all, the "main" article for the subject". No, this is an article that you and a couple other editors are trying to change the scope of so that it becomes your "main" article for the message you trying to convey. This "subject" of this article is the AR-15 pattern, of semi-auto civilian sporting rifles. Since the rights to the design have expired, numerous companies now make this type of rifle (and/or carbine and pistol) based on this pattern. It is enormously popular, to the point of ubiquity, and this is why it gets an article. Trying to cram in as much info about "mass-shootings", gun-control advocacy, and media misrepresentation does not belong. At least not to the extent you guys are trying for. Links to relevant articles in the "See also" section should suffice. Meanwhile, there is UNDUE content here, added without consensus, that needs to be trimmed, altered and/or removed. You can go on about "RS" all you like, but RS is not a simple narrow policy of "if it's sourced, it goes in". There are different aspects of that policy that come into play here, such WP:RSCONTEXT, (also known as "Context matters"... because it does). There is also WP:RS AGE, WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:NEWSORG, WP:BIASED, WP:RSOPINION and WP:RSBREAKING. Basically, just because some RS might "say stuff", doesn't mean it automatically get put into an article.- the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  15:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm....ownership issues much? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, as a matter of fact, I do have issues with ownership you and some others editors here seem to be asserting over this article. Constantly adding and changing content, without any regard for neutrality or balance, and certainly not bothering to propose, discuss or seek consensus for any of it on the talk page. Your latest edit is a perfect example. The "AR plays an oversized role"...? And your repeated use of the term "special pleading" only reinforces your misunderstanding of it. And, I don't recall seeing a WP:SPECIALPLEADING policy that permits you to randomly change sourced content to support your personal preferences, or remove it outright. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  17:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement to discuss changes before making them. Since BullRangifer's edits were disputed, we're currently having a discussion in an attempt to reach consensus. The process will go more smoothly if we focus on the content itself and report any inappropriate behaviour at the appropriate venue. Even if the current version is "wrong", we will eventually reach consensus and the article will be changed to reflect it. –dlthewave ☎ 02:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't recall writing that "discussion about changes before making them was a requirement". If you could point that out for me, I would appreciate it. That said, I certainly would urge editors to discuss changes before making them, especially on articles like this, with a controversial subject and during a time when many, deeply held opposing views are actively fueling the edits being made. Wouldn't you agree that proposing changes beforehand is not only a mark of good collaboration, but an effective way to reduce disruption to articles? But, that's not being done here, is it? And I don't see you saying fa to any of the editors here who are adding (and re-adding) controversial and disputed content, regardless of POV, UNDUE or WEIGHT. Didn't you write an RfC about this? How's that going anyway? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  07:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Never intended for civilian use

 * AR-15 Inventor's Family: This Was Meant to Be a Military Weapon, Time magazine
 * Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians, NBC News

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Virtually all commercially successful firearms were based on military designs, because only military use can provide funding for the level of engineering and testing required for acceptably reliable firearms. The 5-shot bolt-action rifle used for hunting in Greenland is based on the Mauser used a century ago in the war to end all wars. The modular aspect of the AR-15 style receiver is an important feature for the sporting modifications made by civilian hunters or competitive shooters who require special stock dimensions because of their size or who shoot left handed or require special sighting devices because of asymmetrical visual acuity or hand and arm coordination. (LEFT HAND, Moriarti Armaments) (Left Handed Upper Halves, Stag Arms) (LEFT HANDED Black Rain Ordnance) Such modifications are less available in modern production of other rifles, and often require expensive services of gunsmiths to modify older firearms. Skilled gunsmiths are becoming scarce; and firearm transfer regulations increasingly complicate transportation of whole firearms to and from distant gunsmiths, while modules and parts can be shipped directly to the owner who can install them on the modular AR-15 style receiver. Thewellman (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

More on terminology/style
It's interesting that NYT uses "military-style" to describe these weapons, such as here: [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/health/parkland-shooting-victims-ar15.html Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly Thing to See’].

Here's an excerpt from another article that discusses military rifles vs civilian AR-15 & similar:

I think that could be a useful source to add to the section: AR-15_style_rifle. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * When comparing the civilian and military rifles I would suggest we stick with publications that are experts in the area. A firearms focused publication is going to be more knowledgeable regarding the details and differences between civilian and military rifles.  The NYT is going to be a better source for broader impact information.  The only reason to use the NYT for such technical information is if we couldn't find a better source.  Also worth noting that article has an error.  The military rifles went from continuous fire (full auto) to burst fire (full auto for 3 shots at a time).  Both are "automatic" under US law.  Much of the rest of that article is fear mongering hype rather than rational analysis.  Springee (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have a concern with the accuracy of the source, I would suggest that you bring it to WP:RSN. "Fully automatic" is commonly used to refer to continuous firing as compared to burst mode, even though both are automatic. –dlthewave ☎ 03:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the point. If we want to source facts of a technical nature then we should use the best sources for that information.  To address your defense of the article error, the author didn't say the continuous mode was replaced with burst but instead suggested the military rifles are semi-auto.  Regardless, I'm not sure what facts we would source from this article that wouldn't be better sourced from more knowledgeable sources. Springee (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, perhaps a authoritative source on firearms would be more appropriate for technical descriptions. PackMecEng (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Where is it implied that military rifles are semi-auto? –dlthewave ☎ 04:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did read somewhere that the Marines M16A2 and A4 are now semi-auto only, and each fire team has one guy that carries a full-auto M27 IAR, and each squad has an M249 SAW. The army's M4s were full-auto, but are switching to selectable 3-round-burst & semi. I'll see if I can find a source. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  04:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * the article in question does not state that military versions are semi-automatic only. Where are you getting that from exactly?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It can be reasonably inferred because they refer to the military moving away from full auto which I suspect most readers would take to mean single shot. Springee (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see where they use the words "moving away." I do see the part where it says that based on what we learned in Vietnam, we switched over in the 1980s to using M16s without the fully automatic function and emphasized controlled firing (which was the right decision of course).  I have 30+ years of service with the Army and have fired quite a few M16/M4's as well as civilian AR-15 variants over the years; from my read of the article, it's spot-on with regard to there being little difference in lethality between using an M16 versus an AR-15 in perpetrating a mass shooting like what happened at Parkland.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk)
 * The article specifically states that military rifles have "burst" mode and, on certain models, "full automatic" mode. It also states that troops are trained to use them in semiautomatic mode. I'm not sure how a reader would infer otherwise. –dlthewave ☎ 02:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I missed where I said "moving away" was a quote from the article. The article actually said:
 * The National Rifle Association and other pro-gun groups highlight the fully automatic feature in military M4s and M16s. But the American military, after a long experience with fully automatic M16s reaching back to Vietnam, decided by the 1980s to issue M16s, and later M4s, to most conventional troops without the fully automatic function, and to train them to fire in a more controlled fashion.
 * Since they didn't specify that the full auto was replaced with burst it would be reasonable for a reader to assume the military went to semi-auto vs burst. Anyway, that is the paragraph where I think a reader may infer something that is generally not true.  You might disagree but short of a survey of NYT readers we aren't going to be able to settle this. Springee (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't "article error" then (to quote your words above), instead its a selective misinterpretation. Surveying readers isn't necessary and there is nothing wrong with using this source if we want to, especially since the article here can be written to be very specific when discussing semi-auto vs burst.  The author is a former USMC infantry officer who wrote a book on the history of assault rifles, which is considerably better credentials for a reporter on this topic than most.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

C.J. Chivers
I added some information from the NY Times article, but the part about military vs. civilian use was reverted. Should this be included? My opinion is that a well-rounded article about a firearm should contain relevant information about its use, not just its design. –dlthewave ☎ 06:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure at the moment, but it strikes me that the current section "Differences from military rifles" is not well written because of the way it uses a bulletized list, kind of like the one that was recently reverted out of the "Use in mass shootings" section. The section header describes them as "differences," but then confuses the reader by listing two things that are different (automatic and burst mode) atop three things that are essentially the same (semi-automatic fire, high capacity magazines, and detachable magazines).  It really needs to be re-written prose style for clarity, along with incorporating some of the information from the article above about how things changed from the 1960's to the 1980's (from automatic mode to burst mode).  I will take a stab at that on my next edit.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, please have a look, you can see the re-writing of the section here. Thoughts, anyone?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a major improvement. I agree that the previous version was very confusing.  Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's much clearer now. –dlthewave ☎ 00:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The prose is an improvement but we should cite things to a neutral article. The gun politics and editorial opinions should not be in this section. The new text contains a number of WP:COAT comments.  I'll take a crack at further cleanup when I get a chance.  Springee (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment -- the author of the NYT article is "a former Marine infantry officer and the author of The Gun, a history of assault rifles and their effects upon security and war".
 * Which firearms focused publications would be recommended? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * First, the primary issues with the new material are WP:COAT and WP:NPOV. The section is supposed to be a simple discussion of the differences between the military and civilian AR type rifles yet it is filled with and sourced to an article that is clearly arguing for restrictions on civilian ownership (and 11+ round magazines). At the high level differences highlighted can be summed up as military version is select fire, either burst or full auto. The rest of the relevant NYT material was cometary.  The section doesn't mention that the select fire models are subject to the 1934 Firearms Act and other related restrictions.  The short military history of the M16 variants is interesting but used to push a POV rather than just inform.  Additional relevant information could include rather than the COAT would be the differences between the receiver, bolt carrier group, the trigger group etc. It would also be worth discussing how the semi-auto and select fire parts are incompatible with one another. The NYT article is clearly has a POV. The basic facts it presents could be sourced to any number of neutral sources. The rest is appropriate for an article on gun control but not for this article. Somewhat ironically the material about reduced capacity magazines for hunting as well as a pump action AR derivative were left in the section even though the sources make no claims about these being military versions. In the past I've read some articles illustrating the technical differences between the mechanisms. I'll try to find one of those articles and rework the section. I don't think this will happen right away. Springee (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Re-reading the NYT source article in question, and asking myself if this Chivers article is an "editorial" in the commonly understood sense, I'm not seeing the author make any statements to the effect that there should be restrictions on civilian ownership. The real point being made by the article is that the military version of the AR-15 and a similar civilian version of the AR-15 are functionally equivalent and just as efficient whether used in combat against massed enemy infantry or used in a mass shooting against noncombatant civilians.  For contrast, compare the Chivers article to an article like this one, which explictly argues for civilian ownership restrictions and is clearly an editorial.
 * With regard to things like differences between bolt carrier and trigger groups, or parts being incompatible, or military models being restricted from civilian ownership by the 1934 FireArms Act, all of those things are fine for inclusion and would be welcome in the section. I infer you may be confused why the material about the reduced capacity magazines and that unusual pump AR derivative were retained in the section; they are there to show that not all civilian AR-15 designs share the same features as the majority of civilian versions that basically copy the military models minus burst fire mode.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I've updated the comparison section with more language more neutral to the topic and removed the off topic material (off topic with respect to the basic comparison of the military and civilian models). The sources are largely gun smithing books or specially firearms publications which should be reliable in this context .  I've added material discussing the differences between the select fire and semi-auto mechanisms.  Since the material about pump action and AWB compliant models was not relevant to the section title it was moved to a new section.  Springee (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Other articles

 * Here is an article that discusses the practical, sporting uses of the AR-15 for hunting;

I think this could be a useful addition to the article. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  04:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, a hunting/sporting section would be a great way to expand the article. –dlthewave ☎ 04:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is an article that discusses the sporting uses of the AR-15;

There are examples of the AR-15 being used for amateur/hobby target shooting as well as a young girl and her father that own and use multiple AR-15s for competeing in organized shooting competitions. Some of this content would be useful for the article. There is, however, another example of an opposing opinion on the rifle that adds balance to this article. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  05:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is an article where firearms manufacturers confirm the sporting intent of the AR-15, cast light on the real problem behind it's misuse;

The article also mentions that Smith & Wesson market their AR-15s as "Modern Sporting Rifles", and one commenter makes the point that a gun in the right hands can actually save lives. Some good points that could be worthwhile inclusions in the article. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  05:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the large copy-pasted texts above. Please do not paste copyrighted text anywhere, including article talk pages. ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 13:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Didn't occur to me that it was any kind of copyvio if we're using it on a talk page and giving full attribution. But, the links are still there so it's not a big loss. Thanks for letting us know. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  15:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - these don't strike me as usable. Note:
 * "In interviews (...), leaders of 15 state shooting groups...";
 * "AR-15s are not the problem, manufacturers say";
 * "Fans of AR-15 explain their weapon’s appeal"
 * These would be reliable sources for their own opinions, but nature of this commentary makes them borderline WP:SPIP. Expert 3rd party opinions would be preferable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "these don't strike me as neutral or usable" - and I am truly shocked at that, but you're missing the point of them entirely, which is AR-15s aren't just military-style-assault-weapons used by deranged psychospaths on kill-crazy-murder-sprees. They're tools, they're intended for sporting purposes and they're used for sporting purposes. People use them for hunting, and not just trophy-collecting, but pest-control, livestock and property defence, animal population control, protection and of course food. Other people use them for hobby-target-shooting, also known as "plinking" or "punching paper". And yet other people, whole families even, use them for competitions, amateur and professional. For every AR-15 used in a mass-shooting, there are a million more being used for legitimate sporting purposes by their legal owners. These activities aren't just being promoted by "Guns & Ammo" or "guns.com", but confirmed by clearly reliable sources such as TIME, CNBC and The Hamilton Spectator (which isn't even American, it's up there in Canada, which isn't exactly gun-central). These were simply presented as examples of the intended legitimate, sporting uses of these items, to help counter the non-stop POV content you and a couple other users have been dumping onto articles like this since the Stoneman shooting. You seem to care more about getting a message out than maintaining a neutral balance on these pages. Don't preach guidelines and "neutrality" to me until you are willing to follow the policies & guidelines here yourself and keep your own contributions more neutral. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  04:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Re: Don't preach guidelines and "neutrality" to me until you are willing to follow the policies & guidelines here yourself and keep your own contributions more neutral, please keep the discussions focused on content, not contributors. (You have also selectively quoted me, as I modified my comment here, before anyone responded: ). Please don't personalise discussions unnecessarily.


 * I commented on the sources: they do not meet requirements laid out in WP:IRS, and I indicated why: WP:SPIP / WP:PRIMARY. These sources relay opinions by shooting groups, fans, and manufacturers. These are reliable for their own opinions, but that's not the expert, independent sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

"please keep the discussions focused on content, not contributors" "You have also selectively quoted me, as I modified my comment here, before anyone responded" "Please don't personalise discussions unnecessarily" "I commented on the sources: they do not meet requirements laid out in WP:IRS, and I indicated why: WP:SPIP / WP:PRIMARY. These sources relay opinions by shooting groups, fans, and manufacturers. These are reliable for their own opinions, but that's not the expert, independent sources" "Re this plus others at Talk:AR-15 style rifle, please do not personalise disputes unnecessarily. Here's the relevant section from Arbitration Request decisions: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control." "Please be aware how your comments are coming across. I respectfully request that you strike the personal comments directed towards me. --K.e.coffman 04:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * While I have commented on content that you contributed, the manner in which you've contributed it and the effect your contributions have had on some articles, I haven't made comments about just you.
 * Be careful with your accusations. When I opened the edit window, you hadn't made that change, it was still posted. While I was typing out my post, proof-reading, previewing, re-doing part of it, proof-reading and previewing again several more times for tweaks and typos, you were making changes I had no way of knowing about. I finally posted my comment and then went on to other things, both onWP & IRL. So, to be clear, I didn't "selectively quote" you, as your accusation states, I accurately quoted what you wrote and what I read.
 * I could as the same of you and your wild and false accusations. I'm not personalizing this. I am however critical of some of your contributions, and I've stated why. If someone doesn't agree with what you edit or the way you edit it, do you always take it personally?
 * I posted reliable sources that support the contention that the AR-15 is intended as a sporting rifle, and that it is indeed used in many sporting pursuits. Have any of your sources that you've listed here or actually used in articles, contain opinions by members of the media? Or quotes by politicians? Or are they all 3rd party, neutral experts? (this is not a rhetorical question) Now is that all? Apparently not. Seems you felt the need to post on my talk page about this as well, despite by clear request to the contrary. You wrote;
 * Battleground behaviour concerns at AR-15 style rifle
 * I addressed that above.
 * There's something familiar about this... almost like I've seen this somewhere else before. Have you gone to other editor's talk pages, asking them to change or remove comments that mention you and/or your edits? Just curious. As for here, just what is it you want me to remove here? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  06:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * , I hadn't seen a reply yet to the pair of questions I posed; are all your sources that you've listed so far, both here and in the article, 3rd party, neutral, expert sources that follow WP:IRS and WP:SPIP? Also, you noted concerns about one of my replies. If you could point out the exact problem, I'm more than willing to make changes, if this will help move things forward. Thanks - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  02:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

International police use
In response to the US-centric tagging, I would propose something like the following text to begin a section describing international police use of AR-15 style rifles:
 * United States law enforcement agencies began to adopt AR-15 style rifles as their primary duty rifle following the 1997 North Hollywood shootout. US police are rarely charged while shooting about one-thousand people annually, accounting for three percent of US gun deaths. Definitions of mass shootings vary, but total deaths from US shootings with three or more fatalities, excluding the shooter(s), have usually been less than one hundred per year, or about one-tenth the number of deaths caused by police use of firearms. Shooters may have difficulty assessing an appropriate number of shots to fire in the stress of combat. The M1903 Springfield included a magazine cut-off requiring a soldier to load a single cartridge after each shot to prevent him from wasting ammunition by emptying the magazine as rapidly as he could work the bolt action. Users of semi-automatic firearms are often taught the double tap technique of firing two aimed shots rapidly when poor aim with less powerful cartridges is unlikely to rapidly incapacitate an opponent. The similar hammer technique involves rapidly firing two shots with one sight picture. Recoil may cause the unaimed second shot to miss the target. Each bullet which misses or passes through the target may cause unintended injury to others. Gunfire in urban areas carries a significant risk of such collateral damage. Situational evaluation is recommended after two shots to minimize the collateral damage potential of additional shots. Collateral damage may be either unmentioned or attributed to the alleged criminal to avoid embarrassment when law enforcement authorities control the forensic examination of urban gunfights and the release of information gathered in that examination. More than ninety percent of the 440 bullets fired by police in five minutes missed the terrorists during the gunfight following the 2015 San Bernardino attack. 

Thewellman (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Most of that information is about law enforcement use of firearms in general, not being focused on AR-15 type rifles or even rifles specifically. My understanding is that most shootings done by police are performed by handguns. Right? I'd revise all that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your source is regarding weapons used by police to kill suspects, but if police used AR-15 style duty rifles for only one tenth of these gun deaths the number of casualties would equal mass shooting gun deaths attributed to AR-15 style rifles. Most of the mass shooting events listed as being associated with AR-15 style rifles also involved other firearms, and few sources specify which firearm caused the casualties. Thewellman (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * None of those make any connection between AR-15s and police shootings. The reason this article mentions mass killings using AR-15s is because lots of reliable sources make that connection. I don't think this article should contain anything about police shootings unless a good number of sources describe AR-15s used in police shootings.
 * You source this line: Definitions of mass shootings vary, but total deaths from US shootings with three or more fatalities, excluding the shooter(s), have usually been less than one hundred per year, or about one-tenth the number of deaths caused by police use of firearms.  to a spreadsheet of mass killing victims. How is that a source for that statement? The rest of the text is just a general description of combat, why should it be in this article? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Additionally, most of that text is still about the US, so I'm not sure how it even addresses the issue. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said, it's only a beginning, but I hope others can provide comparison information about police use of AR-15 style rifles in other countries as was mentioned in the comment when the tag was added. I observed police armed with AR-15 style rifles in the Philippines forty years ago, but I cannot provide a source citation. Thewellman (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * - Sorry, but I don't see the connection between the US-centric tag and what you have proposed here. I also don't see what statements such as "US police are rarely charged while shooting about one-thousand people annually" have to do with this article. I think that including information about semi-auto-only AR-15s being issued to Law Enforcement (LE) agencies as a legitimate intended purpose and use of the rifle is worthwhile. But straying into the numbers of deaths caused by police, and not distinguishing between what percentage are specifically due to semi-auto-only AR-15s vs. any and all other LE-issue firearms (eg: pistols, shot-guns, other brand/type rifles and carbines, AR-15s with burst and/or full-auto capability), and other causes of death (tasers, batons, blunt force trauma (beatings with fists, boots, etc), vehicular, positional asphyxiation, choke-holds, etc., etc.) is not, in any way that I can see, of benefit to the article. As I noted somewhere above, if there are 12 million ARs in the US, and a dozen of those have been used in mass-shootings, that is a ratio of 1 million-to-1 in legitimate use to illegitimate use, and therefore, this article should focus on it legitimate uses, which is primarily as a sporting rifle. That is the kind of content we should be seeking to generate for addition. There is already to much content addressing the minuscule percentage of ARs being used in mass-shootings. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  13:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * That superficially plausible 1-million-to-1 argument has the problem that for each 1 million benign cases there is 1 mass-shooting, with massive, tragic impact on people's lives. Even though only 1 in a_very_high_number of air planes crash, air traffic safety is still a concern. Similarly, Wikipedia has plenty of material on nuclear power plant accidents, although such accidents are exceedingly rare. So when people get killed, especially when it is for no good reason, then it is notable. Especially in the context of an article that deals with a tool made specifically for the efficient killing of people. Lklundin (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the polite and well-reasoned responses. I yield to consensus. Are there any alternative suggestions for dealing with the US-centric tag if, as the tagger suggests, civilian ownership of these rifles is very unusual in other countries? Thewellman (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * - "...article that deals with a tool made specifically for the efficient killing of people" - And that is part of the problem right there. First, that is not what this article is about and second, that "tool" was not "specifically made for the efficient killing of people". You are talking about the M16/M4 family of rifles, which are based on the original Armalite AR-15 that Stoner designed for the military. Yes, that rifle was designed to be efficient in several respects, one of which of which is lethal force. But the semi-auto-only civilian-variant, marketed to the public, is intended as a sporting rifle, for target shooting (in it's many forms) and hunting (in it's many forms). AR-15s have been used in 8 of the 20 mass-shootings in the US in the last 70 years. It's widely reported that there are 10-12 million AR-15s in the US. Does that even include unregistered lower receivers? (The actual 'gun' part of the gun. The so-called "ghost gun"; 80% complete lowers anyone can buy anywhere and finish at home in an hour with a Dremel. No serial number. No license required. No registration). How many of those are out there as well? So, if anything, the 1,000,000:1 ratio is low. It's more like 2,000,000:1 and that's not just plausible, it's a virtual certainty. Now, the point here isn't to downplay mass-shootings (not. at. all.) or any role the AR-15 has played in them. The point is to get some perspective and context, and with that, balance and neutrality. These rifles are manufactured and marketed for sporting purposes, and the numbers confirm that is just what they are being used for. They are sporting-style rifles and that is what the article should be about. There should be more info about the different types of sporting uses, such as the various types of competitions they're used for. Also, I just provided articles that discussed the numerous types of hunting they're used for, as well as just everyday target shooting at local ranges. There's also collecting, self-defense and the now booming 'prepper' industry to be taken into account. There is already too much info in this article for what amounts to less than .0000005% illiegal misuse of this tool. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  20:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your numerical exercises are nothing but WP:OR. The reality is that the use of semi-automatic rifles in mass-shootings have a massive impact on their place in society, up to the point where mass-shootings affect the law-making that regulates their civilian usage. So mass-shootings are clearly notable here. And the argument that AR-15 variants made for a civilian market are somehow non-lethal is just naive. Lklundin (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * TBH, I wasn't planning on posting here for awhile (what else is there to say? either people will keep the article neutral or they won't). But given the your comments here, I will reply; "Your numerical exercises are nothing but WP:OR." - Actually, the number of ARs in the US, "10-12 million", is right from the lead of this article, and it's sourced. The number of mass-shootings that ARs have been involved with came from a linked article. The existence of "Ghost guns" is also from a linked article. At a minimum, the sourced numbers provide a ratio of 10,000,000+:8, or 1.250M+:1 legitimate vs illegitimate usage. IOW, the sources say that less than .0000008% of ARs in the U.S. have been used in U.S. mass-shootings. There's nothing "WP:OR" about that. "The reality is that the use of semi-automatic rifles in mass-shootings have a massive impact on their place in society," - Yes, they have a "massive impact"... for a couple of news cycles. They stir up emotion (rightfully so) and drama (some unnecessary) and sadly, opportunism (mostly sickening). Then they become a part of history, like other mass-shootings, and countless other daily tragedies. "up to the point where mass-shootings affect the law-making that regulates their civilian usage." - It certainly did in Australia. But all the other mass-shootings we're talking about are in the U.S. What was the last U.S. federal law that was passed, as a result of an AR-involved mass-shooting, that in some way limited civilian access to ARs? - "So mass-shootings are clearly notable here." - No disagreement here what-so-ever. I'm not even sure why you mention that. I've never said that mass-shootings weren't notable, nor did they ever say they shouldn't be noted in AR-15 or other firearms related articles. What I have said, repeatedly, is that any inclusion of such content should be neutral and keep the article balanced. - "And the argument that AR-15 variants made for a civilian market are somehow non-lethal" - I never said that. What I've said is, ARs are manufactured and marketed for the intended purposes of sporting use. Non-lethal sporting activities such as target shooting; both hobby & competition, collecting, prepping, hunting, (which is lethal only to animals), and I mentioned once that some people may choose to use ARs for self-defence. But basically, they're not intended for killing people. They're based on a Mil/LE design that is, but the civilian variant is not. That said, of course it's lethal. So are cars. And Bic lighters (literally and figuratively). And a staggeringly long list of other items that can be used to kill a person. So what? "...is just naive." - (we both that's wrong, so I'll just leave that one alone). Have a nice day - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  17:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

, could you explain what makes the article US specific? The US is the largest civilian market for these rifles but I'm not sure what makes the article content US specific? Springee (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, as indicated in the edit summary, the article describes civilian ownership of this type of weapon, but silently forgoes the fact that in most countries in the world, civilian ownership of this kind of weapon is not permitted. Lklundin (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In an extreme example, an article about a product that's only sold in one country would obviously and rightly devote the entirety of its discussion to that particular country. However, if there are good sources describing semi-automatic AR-15 variants in use in other countries (police, military, or civilian), or good sources describing countries that ban the AR-15, then that would be good material to add. I've tried to look for some kind of cross-country comparison of semi-automatic rifle restrictions or just sales numbers, but it seems difficult to find such things. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Having looked at the already cited sources for this article, the article could in its introduction include a sentence such as: "Some countries, notably the USA, permit civilian ownership of semi-automatic rifles such as variants of the AR-15." This would clarify that this article has a limited geographic scope. It is possible that other contributors will have an opinion regarding exactly what information we should include in relation to other such countries, e.g. Australia, where civilian AR-15-type ownership was regulated after a mass-shooting. Whenever any such discussion has converged, we can then adapt the outlining of the geographic scope of the article in its introduction accordingly. As the article currently stands, it is somewhat puzzling to readers such as myself, that have only used (semi-)automatic weapons such as AR-15 (variants) in a uniformed capacity in countries where civilian ownership of such weapons is not permitted. Lklundin (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently the AR-15 is popular up in Canada. As of 2015, there were 2.026 Million Canadians with firearms licenses and 796,000 "restricted" firearms, of which, 90,000 are AR-15s. They can't know exactly how many "unrestricted" firearms there are because they don't have to be registered, but import/export data shows there is approx. 16.5 to 21 Million firearms in Canada (with a population of 36.3M). - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  18:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Problem with main image caption
The main image's caption of "the lower receiver without the receiver extension, rear takedown pin, and buttstock" is incorrect, there is also a grip, which is not part of the receiver, nor is the trigger group. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Changes to description of the ArmaLite AR-15 as an assault rifle
It seems that a few times a week someone comes by and makes a small change to the article where they simply remove the word "assault" from the description of the original ArmaLite AR-15 in the terminology section. That weapon is obviously an assault rifle—it's a select-fire military rifle firing an intermediate cartridge—and the assault rifle link there is far more helpful and relevant than just a link to rifle. But apparently there's such an antipathy towards the term that people simply see it and remove it without even thinking. If they clicked on either the ArmaLite AR-15 or the assault rifle link before editing, or just read slightly further in the article to see comparisons between the ArmaLite AR-15 and the Colt AR-15, then they'd know enough to realize the sentence is accurate.

It's only a minor annoyance as long as there are people watching the page, but it's fairly consistent. Is there anything we can do to try and discourage people from changing this over and over? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an invisible WP:COMMENT.--Pharos (talk) 07:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Criminal use
AR-15 style rifles have been used in some of the most high-profile mass shootings. But, most killings and other gun crimes in the United States are committed with the use of handguns. As a result, AR-15 style rifles are used in a very low overall percentage of gun crimes in the U.S. This last point was recently removed from the article. I'm going to go ahead and put it back in, reworded, and with the references that were there before. I'm renaming the "Use in mass shootings" section to "Criminal use", and giving it two subsections -- " Use in mass shootings", and "Other gun crimes". These are the facts -- both the mass shootings and the other gun crimes -- and they have reliable references. Furthermore, all of this is of interest to our readers. As editors we should present the facts -- properly referenced, with a neutral point of view, and without undue weight. Restoring and rewording this material does that. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I support restoring the material in general. I was going to do so but via a rephrasing of the paragraph.  I would lead with ARs/rifle's in general... Then follow with ARs in mass shooting.  I think it would be better to keep this all in one section.  Springee (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * There are reasonably good but incoomplete statistics on handguns vs rifles in criminal use, but almost nothing breaking down AR-15 style rifles as a portion of that. That's a sort of a fundamental problem in writing on this topic.--Pharos (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I would say that the mass shooting aspect is prominent enough to stand on its own. If an editor had taken the overall criminal use statistic from another source and used it as a point of comparison, that would be inappropriate WP:SYN. But that is not the case here. At least two of the cited sources specifically mention the comparison between ARs and handguns, so I would call it a well-sourced and constructive addition to the article. –dlthewave ☎ 02:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I personally think it should not be included, if you include statistics for one type of gun crime, why not statistics for percentages of mass shootings committed in the US with AR-15 style rifles? My personal feeling is a very simple prose style list without any statistical analysis is best. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Armalite assault rifle
We've had a number of IP edits removing the assault rifle description from the history section. To the best of my knowledge all Armalite AR-15 models were select fire this meet the definition. However, I'm not sure if the source in the article says that. Thus we have an article statement we know to be true but it's also unsupported. I would suggest we find a source that explicitly says assault rifle so there is no ambiguity. Surprisingly with a search on my phone I haven't found any sources that directly call the Armalite AR15 an assult rifle. Springee (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The source says
 * "These are two of the main reasons why the AR-15/M16-series rifles are considered the finest human-engineered assault rifles in the world."
 * I think it's a "the sky is blue" situation where most sources don't feel the need to point out the obvious. –dlthewave ☎ 12:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your source illustrates the ambiguity I'm taking about. The militarybColt AR-15 was select fire but the sources I've found regarding the Armalite model don't specifically say it.  But, absent a source saying it wasn't I'm ok with the sky is blue type justification. Springee (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC2018)
 * The source is about the development of the Armalite AR-15. Here's another which is more explicit: . –dlthewave ☎ 13:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I added both sources, with the relevant quotes placed in the refs.
 * Now, can we get back to the previous section and decide to add that phrase from the CBS source? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits
I rolled back to an earlier version as can be seen here. There have been rewrites by a new user and an IP (who I assume to be the same) that removed sourced content (i.e. ) and introduced original research (i.e. ). I'd be happy to discuss further. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand most of those roll backs. Do you think the change I made here should have been included? []  My edits reduced some of the repetitive material.  They might have cut sources but if that was true they were only redundant sources.  Anyway, please let me know. Springee (talk) 03:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I just notified them that our content must be based on RS, and The Daily Wire is not one of them. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * yes, sorry about that. In any case, the edit was such that it's impossible to see from the diff what was removed. Could you let me know which sentence(s) got removed? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , no problem. I was wondering if all those other changes were going to stand.  I linked to my change but I'm happy to restore if that's easier. Springee (talk) 03:57, March 18, 2018‎
 * I see the diff but it's not telling me what has been changed: diff, because of different line breaks and material being moved around. Do you see what I mean by looking at the diff? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I just did some checking and calculations, and I didn't notice any significant changes that would be problematic, hence I tend to think that restoring Springee's version of that section would be proper. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. For example, Springee's version opens with: "Most killings and other gun crimes in the United States are committed with the use of handguns. As a result, AR-15 style rifles are used in a very low overall percentage of gun crimes..." That seems out of place; I prefer this be placed at the end, as in the prior version. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Although similar wording has been in both versions, it's actually (1) undue special pleading and (2) off-topic. Should we keep it or not? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's in a RS which connects the two, that might justify keeping it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems weasely / off-topic, especially at the beginning of the section. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's more acceptable at the end, as in the previous version. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * [added after the edit conflict] I prefer the comparison to handgun use at the beginning of the section.  It's not off topic since a comparison of AR-15 criminal use to other gun types is on topic and often mentioned in RSs on the subject.  Springee (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] Based on BullRangifer's comments I restored the text I had. I'm not sure what K.e.coffman's concern is. Is it putting the Port Arthur material later in the section? I think it is important to keep note that AR-15s (and long guns in general) are on the whole used less often in crimes than handguns. The rest of the section goes into mass shootings. I think that flow works better than say covering all the mass shooting material first then putting the single sentence at the end. Note, this wasn't an order I added but was based on the paragraph structure that other editors added. The part I did was combine what was previously a separate criminal and mass shooting section with redundant information and then put the Port Arthur material at the end vs first. Springee (talk) 04:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Springee, would you please self-revert until we can develop this content together? Because of DS conditions, we really need to be careful about restoring. This collaboration seems to be working, so let's keep on developing here and then restoring a good version. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was about to add your suggested phrasing from below. Any reason not to? I'll hold off until we have an agreement then we/I can make the change then. Springee (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This source, which is used, justifies keeping that content, maybe with slightly revised wording:


 * Most killings and other gun crimes in the United States are committed with the use of handguns. As a result, AR-15 style rifles are used in a very low overall percentage of gun crimes in the U.S.


 * I'm not wed to the particular language. I tried to change that as little as possible when I consolidated (for fear of being accused of trying to downplay).  Springee (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand, and I trust you did give it a very good try. We can work this out. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To make it relevant as an introductory sentence, adding (a paraphrase of) these words from the CBS source ties it into the subject of mass killings very nicely: "Still, the AR plays an oversized role in many of the most high-profile shootings." How would that be? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit break
I like your revised heading. Here is a proposed version, with the added wording:

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This sentence: "Most killings and other gun crimes in the United States are committed with the use of handguns. As a result, AR-15 style rifles are used in a very low overall percentage of gun crimes in the U.S." seems to be an unsuitable re-shuffling of the original source, which says "...the AR15 plays an oversized role in many of the most high-profile shootings..." This article is about AR-15, not the gun violence in general. It may possible to include it somehow (of which I'm not yet convinced), but not in a prominent position as in Springee's version.
 * The heading does not work for me either. The section is about "mass shootings" (mass shooting is a crime, so it seems redundant. Feedback on these two points? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As said here I don't believe there should be any comparison between crimes committed with AR-15 style rifles and handguns, but if it is to be included it very definitely should not lead, I agree with K.e.coffman in that it seems weasely / off-topic. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC).
 * I like BR's suggestions. It addresses some of the concerns I had that were lost in an edit conflict. K.E.coffman, that sentence (aside from exact phrasing) was already in the article prior to my edits. [] I'm OK with phrase changes but I think it's a good way to start the section and it sticks with what was already there. Springee (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This content "as a result..." has been challenged previously: . I think it's off-topic, as this is the article about AR-15 not gun violence in general. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet it's still about AR-15s, including their use in gun violence, and a special type called "mass shootings/killings", so it's relevant. What do you think of my version, with the tie in? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The heading can go either way, as far as I'm concerned. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are two articles that make the tie in. Should we take a straw pole? [] []. As for the heading, if we include content about use in all types of crime (the sentence we are discussing) I would keep "crime" in the heading.  If that goes and the content is just mass shootings then the heading should follow. Springee (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Then "Use in crime and mass shootings" certainly covers the bill. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Springee, K.e.coffman, and Cavalryman V31, can we now decide to add that (bolded below) phrase from the CBS source? It's in the ref, but needs to be in the text, as shown below:

Without it, the introduction (before the refs) sounds more like special pleading, but with it, the phrase becomes part of a logical tie-in to the subject of mass shootings, which is a significant subject when discussing crimes. (I have added "they" and "still" to this version. "They" is grammatically necessary, and "still" is from the source. "Still" is used in the source, and should be used here, because it's a necessary qualifier which emphasizes that, in spite of the special pleading preceding it, it must "still" be remembered that these are deadly weapons which have been used in mass shootings. For better or worse, anyone who knows them and has used them has to admit they are the perfect weapon for such a use. They really are an amazingly well-designed rifle.

I have also stricken the "mainstream media" part, as it's also unnecessary and a not-so-subtle jab at what most RS say. Let's just leave that out. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is an improvement. I'm concerned that Most killings ... handguns is presented as a fact in Wiki voice while "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile" is written as a quote, even though both are reported by the same RS. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the version proposed by BR. Dlthewave, the fact that handguns are used in more gun crimes isn't an opinion, it's a widely cited fact based on FBI crime data.  Since it isn't a controversial fact we should present it in Wiki voice.  If you think it needs more sources that they can be added.  The "oversized role" part is definitely a subjective view since, based on this article assault weapons (including and specifically mentioning the AR-15) are used in only 27% of mass shootings[].  The 27% stat may be worth adding except that we don't know what subset of the 27% comes from AR-15 style rifles vs other assault weapons.  I'm comfortable with the BR's version.  Springee (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You make a good point. I'll support BR's version for now and try to find a better source for the stats. –dlthewave ☎ 20:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Better sourcing there would be good. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

✅. Thank you all, my fine collaborators. I think this is an improvement. I hope that this also creates more stability on this issue. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Putting crime section after intro
has changed the section order of the article to put the crime section just after the intro. This is a change that doesn't follow the layout of many/most articles that I'm aware of. Per WP:ONUS this change now needs a discussion to stay. Absent consensus for the change it should be reverted. Springee (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * What do you mean when you write "...doesn't follow the layout of many/most articles that I'm aware of"? Speaking for myself, I'm aware of many wiki articles with all sorts of layouts.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 03:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Look, you make the change, you get reverted, you seek consensus. That's how this works. I'm going to put it back where it was, since that seems to make the most sense to me. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought that gave a good explanation, namely: "Use in crime and mass shootings is obviously more important than the modularity of the rifle, as is born out by the fact that one is discussed in the lede and the other not." --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The first problem is simply procedural. The edit was rejected so the next step is come here and get consensus for the change.  I disagree with the edit because, as is the case with many such topic, we describe what it is first then talk about impacts and teh like.  It becomes a basically chronological order.  What is it, where did it come from, how does it work, then how was it used.  If the order of the article is going to change lets get a few more eyes on it to discuss things first.  BTW, I wouldn't assume that the lead is correct.  Looking at it I think the lead could use some real work.   Springee (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think giving an actual description of what the term means what the guns are is most important. The section ordering could probably be improved, but I'd say that terminology, modularity, and comparison to military versions should be higher up than usage in crime and mass shootings, since they provide key facts about what the guns are and how they work, which I think is more fundamental than how they are used. Not sure about the other sections. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur criminal use should follow a description of the rifle's features. The fact that these rifles have been used is less important than the reasons they have been used. I would argue that certain features make AR-15 style rifles more effective than some other firearms, but the current focus on coverage in reliable sources indicates publicity may be a more significant reason. In that case, I suggest Wikipedia should carefully consider whether we want to join the sources which may encourage potential mass shooters to select these rifles. We can easily revise the lead section as appropriate to justify revised sequencing of the remainder of the article. Thewellman (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The argument that the lede determines importance and relevance here doesn't make sense logically as this is apparently a piece of work that is under revue in general. Rather, logic would dictate that we then need to assume that the lede requires correction based upon the results of these most recent discussions. As for the importance of modularity, this is a literal feature of the design itself, as such it is significantly more relevant to the rifle itself than events which fall outside of the intended use of the design Syr74 (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Is the lede not just a little over the top with all the references to crimes and legality? I believe there is certainly not this much attention given on this content in any books or article of black rifles. This is already covered in the article under its own heading. And I fail to see were that much weight needs to be placed on that content. This content does also have many of its own articles devoted to it. Should it not all just be merely in a see also or perhaps in certain circumstances main article at such and such. Would that not certainly be a compromise. Saying " I'm aware of many wiki articles with all sorts of layouts" is certainly not a defense of the current lede. -72bikers (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the references to crime and legality are fine the way they are. But maybe it would make sense to add slightly more material describing the basic function of the rifle, if you're concerned about balance of material. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * To anyone who knows anything about firearms, modularity is the single best reason for this type of gun success. -72bikers (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion notice
A discussion related to this topic is taking place at NPOV Noticeboard. –dlthewave ☎ 02:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Wafflehouse shooting
, at this point it may be too soon to include that shooting in the article. I would suggest getting some consensus for inclusion (see previous discussions of similar cases). Currently I would oppose inclusion as not notable in context of the article topic. Springee (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur with Springee that this event is of trivial significance to the subject of this article. Thewellman (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We should have have some kind of way of determining which shootings are significant enough to bring up, and describe them as representative of many more that have to go unmentioned. Unfortunately, if we included every mass shooting mentioned in a newspaper where the shooter used an AR-15, the entire article would be shootings and we might as well rename it to "list of mass shootings where the killer used an AR-15 style rifle". I think secondary sources, like those that describe the history of AR-15s being used in mass shootings that we already have in the article, would be helpful guidance for determining signifigance, instead of just going by news reports of individual events. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how it is beneficial for the readers to introduce this crime content in the article every time a crime is committed. This heading is now already bigger than or as large as most of the other headings in the article, this in my mind looks like undo weight being placed on this content. To blame a inanimate object instead of addressing the real problem of mental health, as especially this buck-naked deranged crazy has shown and not anything about it in the Mental disorder article, were it clearly belongs. Would it not be better to just have a sentence or two then a see also or main article link to the mass shootings article.72bikers (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Mental health is certainly an important and relevant issue, especially for this particular shooting. The fact that said crazy people can easily procure AR-15 rifles and kill many people with them is what makes this event particularly pertinent for an article on that specific type of weapon.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 18:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The "Use in crime and mass shootings" section is currently 1077 characters. It is the shortest prose-style section in the article. If you think this should be added to Mental disorders then you should go ahead and add it there. –dlthewave ☎ 18:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Why would it be "too soon"? It's not as though there is any debate about the facts.  As for significance, four people were murdered (and only that few because someone managed to take the gun away) and the event was reported across the world as front-page news.  There are certainly hundreds and maybe even thousands of secondary sources.  That is way past the threshold of notability per wiki standards.  Moreover it was prominently reported in most or all of those reports that the gun was an AR-15 or AR-15 style rifle, which makes it plainly significant for this article (for the same reason the other mass shootings are).   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 18:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Were does it end, you can not include every crime commited in this article, as I have mentioned undo weight being placed on this content. And as far as numbers it is just a aturday night in Chicago. Even the smaller town I live in we have had four people found dead in a house killed all at one time and even more instances like this.72bikers (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * So you admit this content should be placed in the Mental disorders article but you fail to have the interest to put it there. Really? -72bikers (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

As far as size you are just splitting hairs, as visually it looks bigger or as large as most of the other headings. -72bikers (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I realize we have plenty of reliable sources stating that the shooter used an AR-15, and that it was a newsworthy event. But how many newsworthy events have occurred where the shooter used an AR-15? I bet if you dug through news archives you'd find at dozens, perhaps hundreds of shootings of similar coverage over the past few decades where the shooter used an AR-15. It is unfortunately, a too common event in this world. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, and it isn't an indiscriminate dump of information. I don't know if this Waffle House shooting was significant enough to include in this article, it's still in the headlines. Will anyone be talking about this a month from now? A year from now? Maybe we should wait to get some perspective. But even if this turns out to be an event of lasting significance, the larger problem still confronts us: we can't include all of the shootings where people were killed by an AR-15 that received this kind of coverage in this article. Also, 72bikers, whatever is going on with the Mental Disorders article is completely irrelevant to this discussion. It's unfair of you to demand that another edit go work on something. Nobody has to work on any article, and you can't order people to do so. Additionally, whether the weapon was "to blame" is equally irrelevant to the determination of what information belongs on this article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: this addition seems fine by me. In scope and not undue. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ...and as "in scope and not undue" as it is, even as brief as it is, will this be the way of things now? Every time there is a shooting involving an AR-15, is it going to be added to this list? Because that's what this is; a list. A repeat, actually, of the list that is already linked twice, in the the lead and in the very same section that all these shootings are being noted in. At some point, this list will outweigh the article (some may feel it already does). Is there a point where even the most ardent of supporters of this content see that this info should be presented another way? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  01:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with Wolf here. Where is the limit?  The Project Firearms crime suggestion was well considered.  We do need some sort of balance between mentioning every time a particular type of gun is used in a crime and the broader readability and encyclopedic value of the addition.  The section in question is about the general controversy relating to the use of the AR-15 type rifles in mass shootings.  We'll we have three good examples and the rest of the section can focus the boarder topic.  That is how articles on the subject (AR-15s in mass shootings) seem to work. In general they do not simply list every example the reporter can find.  We shouldn't either.  Due weight of course is the basis we should be using here.  Well, in context of the rifle does this shooting have any impact?  Thus far no.  As such it's reasonable to argue it has no weight what so ever.  Also in this case no one is arguing that this crime was made particularly deadly because the shooter had an AR-15 vs say a 9mm pistol.  Perhaps after a few weeks the narrative will change and this will become a story about the AR-15 the way Sandy Hook was.  Currently it isn't.    Springee (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I clearly demanded nothing, please do not attempt to put words in my mouth. And mental health is at the root of this kind of crime, so if you are to define the event by a weapon, why not the root of the issue.72bikers (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Also your statement "whether the weapon was "to blame" is equally irrelevant to the determination of what information belongs on this article" this would contradict your reasons for inclusion as well as most of the other editors that state it is relevant. So you are saying just because this weapon was simple used in a crime and mentioned in the news it should be in this article even thought this event is well covered elsewhere on Wiki. -72bikers (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The brief mention of the shooting isn't undue. It's useful to crosslink information like this, and it's common for firearms article to include an extensive Users section because this is often the aspect that receives the most coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 02:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Crosslinking doesn't make the material due or undue. The weight with respect to the topic does that.  Why does this crime have weight in context of the AR-15 article?  The articles I've seen are about the crime, not the AR-15 type rifle.  A scan of headlines and articles don't put much emphasis on the AR-15 vs the mental state of the shooter.  Springee (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with Springee, the gun specifically was only briefly mentioned and his mental health by far received more coverage. -72bikers (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * That simply isn't true. I just google searched "Waffle house shooting" on google news. The first hit never mentions his mental health, and the part of the story that's about the shooting begins with this:  "But Reinking’s father gave the weapons back to his son, who allegedly used one of them — an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle — to open fire at the Waffle House, killing four and wounding four before 29-year-old James Shaw Jr. wrestled the rifle out of his hands, police said."   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 14:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Most of that article was talking about the suicide prevention steps the authorities were talking presumably due to his mental state. The AR-15 got passing mention at the very end of the article.  This is exactly the sort of incidental mention that doesn't justify inclusion in an article about AR-15s.  Springee (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * - "The brief mention of the shooting isn't undue." - wadr, you are missing the point here. How many more of these "brief mentions" can this section sustain before it outweighs the the rest of the article? There are going to be more AR-15 incidents in the news, do we just keep adding them indefinitely? Or at some point do we consider a new approach to handling this content, as I asked in the section below? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  18:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't find the length of the section concerning, as long as it reflects RS coverage. It's common practice to include long lists in firearms articles such as the Users section of Glock. If it begins to overwhelm the article, we can spin it off as a separate list similar to List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737. –dlthewave ☎ 23:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but "list of users" and "list of mass shootings" are simply not comparable. As for a separate list for all these mass shootings and other criminal use incidents, that is something I suggested weeks ago. Perhaps the "list of mass shootings in the U.S." page should include the type/brand of firearm (s) used in each incident, then that article would only need to be listed once in the "See also" sections of any related firearms articles, which would put a lot of these concerns about undue and weight to rest along with all the ongoing disputes and debates surrounding the addition of this type of content. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  00:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Community consensus is to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. Yes, this means we're going to have to keep having these discussions, but that's a normal part of the consensus-building process. The consensus for this particular article is to include a paragraph-style crime/mass shooting section. –dlthewave ☎ 12:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Regrettably that RfC was poorly formed and thus left no suggestions for how to view weight. Consensus is nice but previously editors complained that local consensus was dominated by "pro gun" editors who wanted to exclude all mention of crimes.  If consensus was all that matters what was the issue with exclusion based on local consensus?  What we really need is some sort of consensus that helps people understand how we should interpret the weight of mentions in articles.  I feel that the project firearms suggestions were very good and made sense in context of Wikipedia policies, guidelines etc.  Now the question is still open.  Interestingly, the Toronto van crime hasn't been added to the Ryder or Chevy Express Van articles.  This is why many editors feel there is a double standard with regards to guns. Springee (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - TWC, you ask How many more of these "brief mentions" can this section sustain before it outweighs the the rest of the article? But we are not here the debate the future state of the article; we are here to discuss the present state. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, well... your dictates aside, there are those of us that are concerned about the "present" direction of the editing of some of these articles and the impact it will have on "future" content and balance. In some cases, that 'future' is imminent. (also, it would be nice if you could offer something helpful, at least once, if you are going to continue dogging my posts. this constant personal criticism is accomplishing nothing). - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  00:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The question shouldn't be "how many". The question is why are they in the article in the first place?  The three very high profile mass shootings make sense as examples in context of the section.  Not to dismiss the victims in this case but the WH shooting is small in comparison and so far has had very limited impact.  Remember that this is an article about a type of firearm, not about crime so the inclusions need to have weight in context of the article subject.  This one doesn't.  We should use the Churchill speech rule, mention things in blocks of three.  That actually means we could trim some of the others.  Either way, at this point there is simply no consensus for inclusion. Springee (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * These incidents are covered in the linked article; "Mass shootings in the United States", and with that, I'm still wondering why that page is linked twice in this article? Anyone? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  02:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it's helpful for readers. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Could you elaborate more and actually specifically explain why there is a need for a redundant link. This generally runs contrary to Wiki policies and only "if it significantly aids the reader". Also were is this consensus you speak of, I see many editors opposed to this content inclusion and there has been no compromise made. There are many articles that not once mention any gun at all or when republished from the Associated Press "WAFFLE HOUSE SHOOTING Suspected shooter was troubled for years"  that not once mention any gun, it only talked about his mental state. The full article only had one trivial mention of the gun . And many more that had only one or so trivial mentions, (proof the gun was his), (one brief mention in a write-up ), (one trivial mention when disarmed in a large article), (two trivial mention in a report of mental state) -72bikers (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The manual of style page you're referring to says that generally a link should appear once, but if it's helpful for readers, a link can be repeated at the first occurrence after the lead. That's the situation we have here in the AR-15 style rifle article; "mass shootings in the United States" is linked once in the lead, and once near the bottom of the article.  The MOS portion you've quoted regarding "only if it significantly aids the reader" is inapplicable, as that's in reference to stand-alone and embedded lists.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * That's just splitting hairs. This content "mass shootings in the United States" is not what the article is about. This content is covered in many other articles on Wiki. But we are to believe that this link need to out weight the actual article content? You still have not addressed how it specifically helps the reader. Did they forget by the time they read to the bottom of the article? Can you show this occurrence in unrelated article. -72bikers (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree with, the repeat link is appropriate to include in both the lead and section. Readers often want to continue on to a more in-depth article after reading a section, and I personally find it useful to have the extra link in the same section as the related content. I'm not following the "out weigh the actual article content" concern as the link is in fact part of the article content and does not add any extra length or weight. –dlthewave ☎ 01:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Q. How many more of these "brief mentions" can this section sustain before it outweighs the the rest of the article?
 * A. When the weight of the "brief mentions" section gets too heavy, just make a WP:summary style split to a sub-article on Use of AR-15 style rifles in crime and mass shootings, and then summarize the most important "brief mentions" here under a main article hatnote. This isn't rocket science. wbm1058 (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL... You make it sound sooo easy. If only it were so. 1) I already suggested a split, ages ago. 2) the question still stands; at what point has the article been 'weighed down' enough to require a split? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  04:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly what's there now isn't enough... you have to have more than a stub's worth to justify a split. wbm1058 (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a given, but it is also possible to have less than "a stub's worth" of content place undue weight on an article. (hence some of the on-going debates on these pages). So, really, there is no quick'n'easy answer... But hopefully a solution will be found soon. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  04:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the split, many articles start small and sadly I think the editors here will have more than enough content for inclusion, especially with the bar set so low. -72bikers (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I Still see no valid answers for the superfluous link. This article is not about mass killings, that information is just a side note (covered in many other articles).

Also by including any mention of these types of guns in any crime your side sees fit to (especially when the weapon used is just a side note and more focus is on mental health) and not compromising in any way, is not how consensus works. Regardless of how many time you state there is a consensus or that it is not undue weight does not make your claimes factual. -72bikers (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I've been convinced that it's fine to add this material by the argument that, if we do get to the point where there is a massive unwieldy list, it can be spun off into its own list article. As for right now, the section is still just a tiny part of the larger article. Even if the inclusion principles are unclear in the long run, it simply isn't a problem for the article as it is right now. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Gratuitous content
I don't care to get into a lengthy discussion over the appropriateness of criminal use content in gun articles – I hear that some editors feel this content is gratuitous: unjustified or unnecessary; not called for. Just want to bring your attention to and get some feedback on another type of, in my opinion, gratuitous content. I tried to remove the photo at the top of the Gun laws in the Czech Republic article, but was reverted. Does this pic of a hot hottie packing heat in a gun shop somehow illustrate gun laws to a degree that merits knocking the chart of gun license holders and registered firearms in the Czech Republic over time lower on the page? Feel free to reply here or there. wbm1058 (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So there's a girl in the gun shop... big deal. Should the shop be empty? Would you be happier if it was a dude holding the gun? Anyway, I'm not sure what this has to do with AR-15s. Perhaps you should try that article's talk page for feedback, or maybe WT:GUNS. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  00:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm really disappointed to see someone felt the need to collapse this brief comment, given the wall of text on this page, and that the relevance of this seems to have gone over people's heads. wbm1058 (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is one editor here in particular who feels the constant need to collapse other editor's posts that they don't agree with. They have been doing this for some time now, on multiple talk pages. FYI - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  03:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Article talk pages are for discussion of the content of that article, not for discussion of some other article's content. Additionally, coming to this page to recruit editors to participate in an unrelated discussion somewhere else could be canvassing. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Canvassing might be a stretch, it's not as if he pinged any specific editors. As you can see above (if you uncollapse the hidden content) I agreed that this wasn't really an appropriate place to post that comment. But did mention potential relevance to this page and/or the topics being discussed here. Maybe he could clarify that for us? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  21:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You guys should lighten up. Who's she pointing the gun at? Is there a sales clerk behind that display case? What if we just inserted a picture of the Waffle House shooter posing half naked with his gun in a gun store instead? Would your attitude about that still be "(no) big deal"? If you think that photo helps to illustrate an article about gun laws, then if that's an AR-15 style rifle (I don't know whether it is or not) then that photo could help illustrate this article too? I'm just a bit bemused/incredulous about your indifference to photos like that while at the same time some get all bent out of shape over the mere mention of the term "mass shootings" in any article about guns. wbm1058 (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Uh, what? You are comparing an image of a fully-dressed woman holding a rifle in a gun shop (and she could be a sales clerk for all we know) to an image of a naked, psychotic mass-murderer on shooting spree? You really think that I, or anyone else here, would treat those two images the same? That's a ridiculous assertion to make. (And you're telling us to "lighten up"?) I'm sorry I asked for "clarification", if that's what you call that. I'm in full agreement with the others here that say your post(s) on this off-topic issue do not belong here. An uninvolved editor should close/archive this section immediately, before any additional distracting silliness is added. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  00:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You asked for clarification so I replied. It shouldn't be necessary to "close" this; it's obvious we're talking past each other, and I'm not interested in trying to drive home points that others aren't hearing so I'm moving on to do other things. wbm1058 (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

New approach needed

 * This is exactly what I predicted would happen back in February after the Stoneman shooting when there was a sudden push to have firearms articles include criminal use content. Disputes, disruption, and articles out of balance in violation of WP neutrality policies. We tried to establish a project-wide guideline, but instead had that huge train-wreck of an RfC that left each and every event to be decided by local consensus on every single related article. In other words, a waste of time, leading to more conflict, leading to more disruption, leading to more wasted time. And none of this is leading to any kind of improvement for this project. We need to develop a more effective and consistent method to handle this type of content. This constant bickering is getting us no where, and will likely end up in another sensationalized and disingenuous op-ed by some so called 'journalist'. jmho - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  21:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think literally 5 hours after a discussion has started is a little early to throw up our hands and say "this constant bickering is getting us nowhere". So instead of discussing the discussion, perhaps we should stick to discussing the content of the article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead, no one is stopping you from 'discussing' said content. But even if you can come to some kind of agreement here, it still won't have any affect on future disputes on this, or any other related article, regarding this type of content. We need a better guideline in place that is project-wide, or this will just go on and on... - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  22:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Then go ahead and make a project-wide policy. That doesn't need to be on this talk page. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, not a single word of that reply is in any way helpful. How about I see if anyone else has a response that is perhaps more collegial and on topic...? (that is a rhetorical question, there is no need for a response) Thank you and have a nice day. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  23:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

So after you wrongly claim I am telling people what to do "It's unfair of you to demand that another edit go work on something" you go on to do juts that to Wolf. Really? -72bikers (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * That's ok, 72b, I'm getting used to it. Anyway, as I said, hopefully we can find a new approach to dealing with this content. I see another RfC has been started at NPOV, this time discussing weight. On that particular point, I look forward to 's reply there, as he has repeatedly posted some excellent comments about that very issue, though they have been somewhat ignored. Hopefully with his and some other's input, a solution can be found so that we can indeed move forward with a new approach. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  05:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I haven't been following the discussions or the article edit history very closely... just watching this from a distance. I'm inclined to think that the rough consensus is for what we have... a short two-paragraph section listing several major mass-shootings. Those who feel this doesn't take coverage of mass shootings to a level of sufficient detail, and want more comprehensive coverage of lesser incidents that nevertheless received major coverage in the National media, should probably start a new article Use of AR-15 style rifles in crime and mass shootings that focused on this one topic. wbm1058 (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That had already been suggested, several weeks ago (and more than once). With an article like that, all the "criminal use" sections could be removed and instead that page could be linked in the 'see also' sections. It would probably put an end to all the disputes and disruption and resolve any undue/weight issues. But so far it hasn't happened. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  20:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't be acceptable in my view, but I'd be OK with the section roughly as it is now (without the Waffle House shooting), with a link in the section to the Use of AR-15 style rifles in crime and mass shootings main article with more details. Something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Classical_thermodynamics.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 20:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * all the "criminal use" sections could be removed and instead that page could be linked in the 'see also' sections ... No, no no, that would be a violation of WP:Summary style – the child article holding more detailed information on a subtopic should be summarized in the parent article, that's standard encyclopedic procedure. The goal shouldn't be to segregate content into separate compartments (orphans) that aren't interconnected. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, yes yes...? How can you "violate" something that is only a guideline, and one that expressly states that "exceptions may apply"...? No, we are not exclusively beholden to that. We need to find a way to deal with this content that will (hopefully) put these constant disputes and disruption to rest, and if we need to toss some guidelines right out the window to so, then so be it. This is past the point of ridiculous and it's not getting any better. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  23:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Throwing out guidelines to suit your preference in a controversial edit or article is not the way to go. The guidelines are there precisely to help make decisions when there are controversies.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 00:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Either point out exactly where I wrote that we should throw out guidelines to "suit [my] personal preference" or I'll take it as your tacit admission that you have not one clue about what you're commenting on here. Please read a discussion before commenting on it.


 * That said, if adhering to a particular guideline, or even a policy, only serves to create or prolong any controversy, dispute and/or disruption on this project, then clearly WP:IAR should be considered, if not a review and rewrite of said policy or guideline. This of course would be an undertaking of the community, not just me on my own, so your accusation is clearly misplaced. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  01:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just above, you wrote: "We need to find a way to deal with this content that will (hopefully) put these constant disputes and disruption to rest, and if we need to toss some guidelines right out the window to so, then so be it."  Again,  the guidelines are there precisely to help make decisions when there are controversies.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 01:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, I know what I wrote, and I know it didn't include anything about "my personal preferences", (so I guess you're backing off that?) I also wrote; if adhering to a particular guideline, or even a policy, only serves to create or prolong any controversy, dispute and/or disruption on this project, then clearly WP:IAR should be considered, if not a review and rewrite of said policy or guideline. (aka 'throwing out'). Despite all the guidelines we have in place, there have been protracted disputes and disruption involving numerous editors and multiple articles. Despite all the discussion, ad infinitum and RfCs, both large and small, somewhat effective and ineffective, and numerous guidelines being cited ad nauseum, the disputes continue. There is essentially two parties dug in on either side of a gap and we need to find a way to close that gap. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  02:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at NPOVN
Such discussion is happening at Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

AR-15 style weapons are assault weapons
This term is legally defined, and AR-15-style rifles, unless heavily modified, constitute assault rifles. Failure to mention this is a violation of NPOV. -- KRAPENHOEFFER!  TALK  21:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC) -- KRAPENHOEFFER!  TALK  22:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Two very similar edits were made.
 * {tq|An AR-15 style rifle is a lightweight semi-automatic assault rifle}
 * {tq|An AR-15 style rifle is a lightweight semi-automatic assault weapon}
 * "Assault weapon" (#2) is technically accurate, "assault rifle" (#1) is not. –dlthewave ☎ 21:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Numerous secondary sources refer to the AR-15 style rifle as an "assault rifle". The only opposition to use of the term is politically motivated. Assault weapons can be rifles, pistols or shotguns.  As the AR-15 is a rifle, the term "assault rifle" is entirely correct, regardless anti-gun control organizations/individuals state. -- KRAPENHOEFFER!   TALK  21:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * By way of further answer, the term "assault rifle" was coined by the gun industry, so it's use is non-controversial "The popularly held idea that the term 'assault weapon' originated with anti-gun activists is wrong. The term was first adopted by manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearms owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun."


 * This article has been without "assault" anything in the lead for quite some. It was just now arbitrarily added, reverted and now Krapenhoeffer is edit-warring to retain it without any kind of consensus to do so. It should be removed per QUO until this is decided one way or the other. As the page is under DS, I suggest Krapenhoeffer self-revert for now while discussion takes place. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  22:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It was added correctly, and I will not self-revert. -- KRAPENHOEFFER!  TALK  22:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Look at assault rifle. The very first line says This is the traditional definition that's been in place for over 50 years. Civilian AR-15s are not selective fire. They do not have fully-automatic capabilities. "Assault rifle" is primarily a technical description, and civilian AR-15s do not meet the definition. "Assault weapon" is a legal description in the US, that many, if no most, AR-15s do meet. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * that definition is an extremely narrow one adopted by a single military decades ago. The modern scholarly consensus is that the AR-15 is an assault rifle regardless of what muzzle device or grip it possesses.  -- KRAPENHOEFFER!   TALK  22:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think the addition is fine; the rifle is commonly and consistently referred to in secondary sources as an "assault rifle". We follow the sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources can be wrong. Per WP:label we should avoid provocative or disputed labels. Assult rifle by widely held definition is select fire and thus not the subject of this article. Assult weapon is a nebulous political term who's definition varries by various laws. Some AR-15 type rifles were covered by the last federal legal definition. Others were not hence it's a problematic label. The original description avoids these issues. Your edits were made over the objection of two editors and at this point you are in violation of the edit warring guidelines. I would suggest you self revert. Springee (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's only disputed by ideologues, and as such is irrelevant from an NPOV perspective. This is the same situation as dealing with creationists. -- KRAPENHOEFFER!   TALK  22:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If we put assault rifle in the lead, and someone clicks on that link, they will find an article about rifles with fully-automatic capabilities. This article is about a rifle without fully-automatic capabilities. We would be misinforming our readers to call this weapon an assault rifle. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's why I changed it to be semi-automatic, linking to semi-automatic rifle, followed by assault weapon, linking to assault weapon. -- KRAPENHOEFFER!  TALK  22:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Read Assault_rifle. There are no semi-automatic assault rifles. And linking semi-automatic before it doesn't magically make that link change meaning to "an assault rifle, except not quite, because it's semi-automatic instead". All it does is contradict itself. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * His assertion seems to be coming from this one source from what appears to be a very opinionated author. There are many sources that would contradict his assertions. Here is a definition from Oxford Dictionaries  and here from the Encyclopædia Britannica . There are a plethora more that would all agree with this.


 * Editor KRAPENHOEFFER! also seem to be ill-informed as to the term, it comes from World War 2 and the German StG 44. The designation translates to "Assault rifle, model 1944", thereby introducing the term "assault rifle". The gun industry did not start this and if they did it would be here -72bikers (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's from the Sturmgewehr 44, not the MP40. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct it was just a mistake that I was just about to fix, but thanks. Cheers-72bikers (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. The inclusion of fully-automatic fire as an "essential feature" of an assault rifle is not insisted upon by any military in 2018.  The adoption of the M16A2 by the US Army makes the Army's insistence that an assault rifle is necessarily fully-automatic deprecated.  Furthermore, the various militaries of the world emphasize the use of semi-automatic fire with use of assault rifles, and not automatic fire.  This isn't to say that AR-varients with modifications can't be shoehorned into other roles (the HK416's use as both a squad automatic rifle and DMR in the USMC come to mind).  If we use a definition of assault rifle based on military doctrine (which we should - and it's what the entire world that isn't the US gun control debate uses), any semi-automatic rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine counts. -- KRAPENHOEFFER!   TALK  14:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't hard. One of the essential features of an assault rifle is select fire.  Your previous comment about coined by the gun industry is wrong for two reasons, first it's factually wrong.  Second, RS says we should when possible follow the experts in the field.  Can you find an example of an expert in firearms using "assault rifle" to describe a semi-automatic rifle?  The sources getting the term wrong are the ones who aren't experts in the field. Springee (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I will jump in and confirm what others are saying. Assault rifle is select fire and assault weapon is semi-automatic only. Some examples Mother Jones, CNBC,and Washington Post. There is a fine line between the two but an important one. PackMecEng (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I could not have said it better Springee. His logic is flawed, to ignore the experts and replace with political ideology. He has been shown on many fronts his assertion are just plainly wrong. He has failed to contradict any of the point brought up and has just gone on to make more unsupported assertions. -72bikers (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You are again wrong basing your assertion on political ideology and ignoring dictionaries, encyclopedias, and experts in the field. -72bikers (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Webster's dictionary says semiautomatics are assault rifles. This isn't ideology, this is facts. -- KRAPENHOEFFER!   TALK  20:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's lead article on the subject, assault rifle, continues to use the factual historical and traditional definition, i.e., a select-fire rifle (as opposed to semi-automatic only). Hundreds of Wikipedia articles link to that article.  If this is something you wish to pursue, you really need to propose the change at Talk:Assault rifle and gain community consensus to change the main article (probably through an RfC), which would then propagate outwards.  For good reasons, I am skeptical that the community would break with the longstanding technical definition that to be an assault rifle it must be capable of selective fire, but you are free to try.  I hope you can see that further arguments here on this article's Talk Page are likely just a waste of everyone's time.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Webster definition was charged last month and has caused a bit of controversy. [] Wikipedia says we should give experts in the field but more weight when there are questions like this. Do any experts share the recent revised Webster definition? Springee (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

A motor vehicle parallel
A recent comment here expressed support for identifying specific types of motor vehicles associated with destructive misuse. There may be some misunderstanding about the breadth of devices being described as AR-15s or AR-15 style in the popular press. Since a relatively small percentage of readers seem familiar with these firearms, it may help to describe a motor vehicle parallel with which more people have first-hand experience: In the 1940s, the United States military developed an innovative motor vehicle known as the Jeep. Civilian ownership of Jeeps became popular after the war, and numerous manufacturers offered similar vehicles. Like AR-15, the term jeep was used by the uninformed to describe all manner of civilian 4-wheel drive production despite the name being licensed to a single manufacturer. Today what the motor vehicle industry calls sport utility vehicles (SUVs) are widely recognized as a significant percentage of production; but there seems reluctance to accept the firearms industry name of modern sporting rifles for the spectrum of models comprising a similarly high percentage of modern civilian firearms production. SUVs have already been criticized for poor fuel economy, and the deadly results to pedestrians struck by bullbars. The high ground clearance causes both increased injury risks to sedan passengers during collisions, and poor visibility while backing which has killed a number of children. With a few more high profile mass killings like the 2015 San Bernardino attack other jurisdictions may join Florence, Paris, and Vienna in debating whether there is any legitimate reason for civilian ownership of these military style vehicles. The Wikipedia Criticism of sport utility vehicles article has attempted to identify the specific characteristics of the various SUVs associated with these problems. By contrast, a simple statement that an SUV was involved in any specific event would inappropriately paint the entire spectrum of SUVs with potentially unwarranted blame. I hope sources for the criminal use section of this article (or some related criticism article) can be similarly specific about the firearm features considered significant in that event to avoid implicating models without those features. Thewellman (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Comparison with handguns
(Removed sock edits per WP:EVADE)


 * These descriptions apply to some, but not all, of the various modern sporting rifles being described as AR-15 style. It is important to specify which cartridge the rifle in question was chambered for, as some are chambered for handgun cartridges, and some fire larger bullets, and/or have smaller magazines. Thewellman (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Federal assault weapons ban
Does not say it was banned for looking military it says

"‘(30) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means— ‘‘(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as— ‘‘(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); ‘‘(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; ‘‘(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC–70); ‘‘(iv) Colt AR–15; ‘‘(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;"

Nothing about it looking military.Slatersteven (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The law says quite a bit more than that but I agree the text is currently unsupported. We should have something that mentions the attributes in question as well as something that describes the significance of the features.  More than a few sources described some of the features as cosmetic vs functional (carry handle, flash suppressor) while others were functionally relevant (semi auto, replaceable magazine).  Part of why this is relevant would be to explain why some new AR-15s were legal for sale after the law was passed. Springee (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not in the lead though, that is for summering the article.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I see no reason a brief phase, similar in length to what was removed but with sourcing, can't be in the intro. The problem with the earlier text was a lack of citation, not that such material was inappropriate for the location. Springee (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Because policy says that is what the intro is for, paraphrasing the article. Please see MOS:LEAD.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How was the previous material not in compliance with MOS? A brief phase added to the sentence is still in compliance.  Springee (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.".Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And the removed material is a basic fact. Springee (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not about the item, as it is not solely about it. In fact (as you point out) this is a complex matter that has many POV attacked to it. As such it's place is an in depth analysis in the body. So care to explain how gun control legislation is a basic fact about the gun type?Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a brief intro to the subject. I'm not saying the exact text was ok but now you are changing your objections.  That is exactly what you were getting on me about in the section above.  Either way, if a reliably sourced statement is found we can replace the removed text. Springee (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You were the one who said it should still be in the lead, I am answering your point.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You started this discussion by saying the material wasn't properly sourced, not that it shouldn't be in the lead. I just said replace it with some better sourced material.  You added the new objection related to the lead.  So long as the phrase is not too long I don't see that your objection has merit.Springee (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I was explaining our manual of style and what the lead is for. I fail to see why this has to be in the lead rather then the body. It is not a new objection it is a response to your suggestion. I did not raise the issue of the lead, you did.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you should review. "Not in the lead though" is the first mention of the lead and it wasn't said by me. Springee (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, you just said we should have something about it (not where), of course I never said we should not mention it. So I assumed (incorrectly it seems) you meant in the area I removed it from. A mistake for which I appoligise.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, thank you for the apology. I think we were both getting frustrated and to be honest I was probably digging in my heals out of back and forth frustration.  Perhaps the better option is to add the AWB content then decide what if any should go in the lead. Springee (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll start up a new thread, I would rather keep conversations on target if possible.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait are you trying to suggest that the assault weapons ban was not a major part of the history of these style of weapons? PackMecEng (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No I am saying it is not a basic fact about them. It tells us nothing about the weapon. I am saying that it is a rather complex subject that needs to be discussed in more detail before adding a brief mention in the lead about the ban.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Editor Slatersteven you have repeatedly contradicted yourself. this is what was stated by a gun control advocate "semi-automatic, military style weapons that were formerly banned under federal law are now legal unless banned by state or local law." The wording removed "due to its military-like appearance". Is style not appearance? Also the ban was enacted on cosmetic features found on military firearms. In May 2012, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence said that "the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced." -72bikers (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It depends on context, A french style wine is French in style not because of its appearance. So it depends on what they mean by "military style", Look, or use, or functionality. In addition "gun control advocate" is not "the Federal Assault Weapons Ban", and thus is an opinion only (that would have to have been attributed. Also "a cosmetic feature" and " a military feature" are not the same. At best we can only say that "according to X it was banned..."Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Your response seem to defy reason. All you have stated seems to be just your opinions in dismissing factual content. -72bikers (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Federal assault weapons ban (in body)
There is no reason why we cannot have a section about the Federal assault weapons ban but anything not expliclty said in the text of the act needs to be properly attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, I think the first question is where would this go in the article? It could be part of the sales section.  That section talks about sales in the 1990s and notes the flat top uppers.  I would guess those were sold in part because the "carry handle" of the earlier AR-15 rifles was listed as one of the features that counted towards getting a rifle banned.  Anyway, since there is a primary article on the subject I think we should keep things to just a paragraph and start the text with a link to the primary article.


 * The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms that were defined as assault weapons as well as certain ammunition magazines that were defined as "large capacity." [that sentence is taken right from the lead of the other article]  Several AR-15 style rifles were prohibited by name in the law.[cite]  Additionally a list of restricted features[link to section of AWB article] was created.  A rifle with two or more listed features would be defined as an assault weapon.  As a result of the law, Federal Assault Weapons Ban compliant rifles were introduced by a number of manufactures.


 * That part needs citations but I figure that won't be hard based on getting some from the parent article. The next part, if consensus supports inclusion, is a bit harder since it could easily turn political.  A number of manufactures produced Ar-15 type rifles during the period of the ban.  It wasn't hard to remove a few features that were cosmetic to the non-military user in order to comply with the law.  The gun rights people see this as simply complying with the law.  The gun control people see this as exploiting a loophole.  So how can we describe it in a neutral tone.  I would prefer to keep it fact based, "manufactures produced rifles with no more than two listed features" (say which features where often removed if we can find a citation).  Then I would like to, in the most neutral way possible and with balanced references, say that some saw this as using a loophole to defy the law while others said it was simply complying with the law.


 * I know that isn't a complete text but I thought I would see what people think of the general structure. I don't know about others, but sometimes I find it much harder to come up with my own text from scratch vs identifying what I think needs fixing in an existing block of text... Well that and arguing about what should/shouldn't be in.  Springee (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Is the term "loophole" specifically mentioned? (Repeatedly, prominently and by neutral, expert sources?) Do any sources say that instead of a "loophole", that some gun-control groups found the law "insufficient"? (or "weak", or "soft", etc.) If so, perhaps we could say that "pro-gun groups were simply following the law while anti-gun groups felt the law didn't go far enough"... with whatever wording changes are needed, and with appropriate sourcing of course. The most neutral way to present that situation is to keep it simple; pro-gun felt law was too much, anti-gun felt it was too little... something along those lines, while avoiding buzzwords like "loopholes". - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  04:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a reference stating that the carry handle was removed due to the ban? I couldn't find any mention of carry handles in the AWB article or the text of the law. –dlthewave ☎ 12:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No, that's speculation on my part and not part of my proposed text. The article mentions that flat top receivers became common in the 1990s and I think at least one of the assault weapons laws (there were a number of state laws in addition to the federal law) mentions carry handles.  However, we also have accessory sights and optics becoming more common. Springee (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that this belongs in the Production and Sales section, it's an essential part of the production history. We can also add the fact that production of non-compliant rifles was temporarily ramped up just before the ban took effect.
 * The current sources use the word "loophole", it's neutral and well-supported. It would also be factual to say that the ban did not achieve its intended purpose. We could say something like "The law was intended to ban certain types of rifles but included a loophole that allowed manufactures to continue producing similar designs with sight modifications." Like most loopholes, the criticism is directed at the law itself and not toward the manufactures that were simply complying with the law. I would leave pro-gun/anti-gun out of it altogether since it's not just interest groups that are saying this.–dlthewave ☎ 13:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still on the fence about mentioning the loophole aspects since they are covered in the primary article. I think "loophole" in this case needs to be treated as a contentious label because it suggests sneaking around the law.  In Wiki voice we should say "compliant" or similar.  However, if we are going to mention the controversy then we should say that gun control advocates argued this was a loophole in the law (thus attributing "loophole" to a group).  I think we should avoid discussing the intent of the law and saying the law did or didn't contain a loophole.  That's really a topic best left to the AWB page and if you are a textualist then the law only intended what it covers, not what people felt it should have covered.  I think the ramp in sales of pre-ban guns can be mentioned but we need to be careful how that is done.  Remember that such a run up in production is driven by consumer demand and is 100% legal.  Still, it fits well within a broader discussion of the sales of the gun.  From memory the sales of AR-15s were relatively small until they were about to be banned (people many not have realized that AWB compliant guns would be available).  When the ban was expected there was a rust to purchase before the law went into effect.  Then we had the "compliant" period.  I'm not sure what sales looked like then.  I don't know if we have post ban, pre-Obama sales data.  Then we have the spikes in sales associated with the fear that Obama would pass gun laws shortly after his election (with a super majority senate and house).  Things calmned the spiked again after Sandy Hook.  Then sales fell off with a GOP presidential election.  Anyway, that's drifting off subject, rather political and all from memory... still, its material that did drive sales. Springee (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The rise and fall in sales related to legislation and elections is quite interesting and I would consider the statistics themselves to be uncontroversial facts. This would be a great way to expand the article. I think it makes sense to briefly explain the ban, the loopholes and their effect on sales/production in this article, leaving the rest to AWB. –dlthewave ☎ 03:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, the impact on sales is very relevant in the sales section. I like your plan overall.  I'm not sure how to briefly explain the ban and if we are going to say loophole we should make it clear that the term is contested.  Otherwise. I think we are in agreement.  I'll see if I can find some sources. Springee (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Reported in The Washington Post about this type of gun and the ban. "Critics of bans on assault weapons, however, say they do little to save lives. The NRA correctly points out that assault weapons are used only in a tiny fraction of gun crimes. The gun rights group also notes that a federally funded study of the previous assault weapons ban, which was in place from 1994 to 2004, concluded that “the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”" -72bikers (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The federal weapons ban lists the AR-15 as one of the specific types.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point but I think it was the Colt AR-15 (since Colt owns the trademark). I think several others such as a few Bushmaster models were also listed by name. Perhaps we should say that some AR-15 type rifles, including the "Colt AR-15(TM)" were prohibited by name.  It does beg the question, how much is too much for this article vs the primary article on the subject? Springee (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We should probably make at least some change to this content in the lead. Right now it says, "... although it did not affect rifles with fewer features."  Without more text it's not at all clear what "features" is referring to.  I would propose the lead be reduced to just say "The Federal Assault Weapons Ban prohibited the production and sale of some versions of the rifle." (or similar).  The details of what and why can be covered later in the text.  Springee (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said I do not think this should be in the lead without anything in the body. We should have a section in the body before adding anything more to the lead. Oh and the act bans (by name) AR-15 type weapons.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree, we need more content in the body to support the lead. While I think the lead needs help, it can wait for the body work first.  I agree the law bans some AR-15 type rifles (including the Colt AR-15 (TM)) by name, but it doesn't ban them by type since the law couldn't actually do that.  Instead it defined features that when combined created a prohibited rifle.  Springee (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * But that did not target the AR-15 as such, and thus was not used to define AR-15 derivatives as assault weapons, but rather to define a style of gun (which some AR-125 derivatives matched) as assault weapons. This is why I do not think such a claim "military style features made AR-15's illegal" or some such is undue. It is not about the AR-15 but any semi-auto with said features.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we are probably in agreement but don't realize it. The law had two ways to define what was an "assault weapon".  The first was a list of guns by name.  That included some AR-15 type rifles including the Colt AR-15 (tm), as well as clear AR-15 type rifles like several Bushmaster models.  However, there were many AR-15 type rifles that were not listed by name because, for instance, the mfr was too small for the bill to list by name.  So the law had the second, feature based definition.  The feature based definition is the one that really mattered since a mfr of a banned by name model was legally free to change the name, make sure the newly named rifle didn't violate two or more feature criteria and then it was legal.  You are correct that it was by name that some specific brand/models of AR-15 type rifles were made illegal but that didn't apply generically (and this article is about the generic rifle).  Springee (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is we cannot claim that these "feature" restrictions were targeted at the AR-15. Either to ban them or define them, as it was not about them, nor can it be in the lead, as it is not about them.Slatersteven (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see the point you are making. I don't agree that the feature list was meant just for other rifles and legally there were several AR-15 style rifles named which meant that the law makers acknowledged that similar rifles were made by more than one manufacture.  Furthermore, much of the retrospective discussion of the law talked about how these rifles continued to be produced during the period of the ban due to new models complying with the features list. Springee (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And I am not saying that, I am saying we cannot imply it was targeted at the AR-15. In the body we can say "it was represented as targeting the AR-15" if we have RS saying that). But the lead should either be a summery of important parts of the article, or material that is important to the topic, and whilst the assault weapon ban may well be, specific text withing the ban (unless explicitly naming the AR-15) is not about the AR-15, but about assault weapons in general.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In the lead I think we should skip mentioning it. In the body I think we can say some make-models were mentioned by name but the feature list would apply to all AR-15 type rifles regardless of manufacture.  Remember, even though we call these all AR-15s, that is a trademark name owned by Colt.  I suspect many smaller mfrs were not mentioned but the rules still applied to their rifles as well. Regardless, I think we can come up with text that will both be happy with. Springee (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. We don't need to mention the FAWB in the lead. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  11:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of mentioning it in the lead but only briefly. Springee (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Lets keep what we have for now, but not expand it and work on the body text first.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel if you are to mention this it should be made clear and concise to the reader, with wording supported by the reference. -72bikers (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * it does at the moment.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Quantify prevalence in mass shootings and identify recent time frame
(removed sock edits per WP:EDVADE)
 * This really gets to the heart of the disagreement. Although AR-15 style rifles haven't been used in the most mass shootings, they have played a role in the deadliest ones. This is why it is described as playing an "outsized role" and as the "weapon of choice". Most of the "conflicting" sources that have been brought forward do not address these specific metrics. –dlthewave ☎ 17:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Note IP has been blocked as a sock. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * If handguns are used in the majority of these crimes and ARs are in the minority, then it would seem that handguns are the "weapon of choice". - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  16:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well not in the most recent cases, which is I think the point. That is why a time frame might be relevant. In fact it only seems to be over the last 10 years that the AR-15 derivatives have become so popular among the perpetrators of such crimes (in fact it was first used in this way in 2007, why is open to question, but it may be no accident that sales boomed over this period as well).Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Facts make this claim a untruth and simple misleads the readers because of recent news cycles. =72bikers (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Which fact? that there has been a rise in their use?Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly what is an AR-15 "type" ???
The article needs to define what the topic is a bit better. Is this about weapons that call themselves AR15, or that are called that by others, or that have features from or what ??? There is some mention of them occurring after patents run out -- so can someone specify what features were definitive for an AR-15 that now copied make a rifle of the same 'type' ??? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Basically, any rifle based on the the AR-15 design, also known as AR-15 pattern. Typically, regardless of manufacturer, and with few exceptions, almost any upper is compatible with any lower, use the same type mags, lower parts kit, bolt carrier group, stock & buffer tube, barrel mount, etc., etc.... all the parts and components that are common to this 'pattern', 'design' or 'style' (which is one of the main reasons for it's popularity). Conversely, if you take, say... the SIG MCX, which looks similar to the AR-15 (and has been confused for it), but has a different design and is not at all compatible with the AR-15. Hope this helps a bit. You're right, perhaps the article could make this a little clearer for those not at all familiar with the AR-15. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  03:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Was just about to say AR-15 pattern rifle when you posted. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is kind of a tough term to nail down. Especially since they can be several calibers and some variation of mechanism. I suppose I'll know it when I see it will not suffice? The most in policy way would be if RS describe that specific model as a AR style rifle. PackMecEng (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm glad you mentioned that: the multiple calibers that are available for this "platform" (ah, another descriptor), and the cross-compatibility of some calibers with the same rifle, (specifically the lower, which is the serialized, registered part) with only minor changes, had also contributed to it's popularity. It was initially designed based on the .223 caliber (5.56x45mm NATO for the milspec versions), though that design was based off an earlier .308 caliber/7.62x51mm NATO version. The AR-15 is now available in an assortment of calibers; 9mm & .45ACP pistol caliber carbines (with Glock mags - big bonus), 7.62x39mm, .300 Blackout, .458 SOCOM, .50 Beowolf... to name a few. FYI - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  03:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah that is the part I was most curious on how we would nail that down. I personally have a .22 LR and 5.56 version, my dad has a 5.56 and .300 blackout. Various manufactures between with mine even being a 5.56 80% lower at birth. PackMecEng (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops! That's right, there is also the rimfires... .22LR, .17HMR and apparently .22WMR. Cheers - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  03:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Thewolfchild - if you've got a cite for that, please insert it into the article. As it is, the article seems like it's a vague pejorative replacement for the rebuked usage of 'assault rifle'; or as referring to the 'look' such as a metal frame+pistol grip+ triangular front sight. Specific features and inter-changeable parts would make sense with the mentions of the patents expiring, and the commonality across makers for the parts and accessories would make flexibility and cost sense of the popularity. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The 5.56 and .300 blackout are a good example of how easy it is to change caliber, being you only have to change the barrel and all else is compatible. It even has the ability to convert from direct impingement to short-stroke gas piston. It's versatility is definitely its claim to fame. Also perhaps the reason why it's a little tricky to nail down -72bikers (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Weapon of choice in the media
We recently had a bit of a back and fourth about a small change to the article originating with this edit []. AzureCitizen is correct that with this double back and forth we need to go to the talk page next. I agree with Kevinp2's edit. Reading through the sources, is the "weapon of choice" claim something the reporters are quoting from an interviewed source or is it a statement/claim the reporter has put forth. It appears to me this is something the reporters have put forth as part of their articles which would mean we should make it clear that this is a claim made in the media vs say from the FBI. Thus adding something like "in the media" or "by the media" makes it clear where the claim originates. Springee (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moving the conversation here. I would be fine with adding the words "in the media" instead of "by the media."  The latter has sourcing and interpretation problems while the former is accurate and indisputable.  Will wait for others to comment.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I prefer "in" as well. I agree with waiting for others.  Let's wait a week and see what input we get.  Springee (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's just the opposite. The sentence in question has 8 sources attached to the end, do any of them confirm that it was an interviewed/expert source, such as the FBI, being quoted, and that this isn't just editorializing by any members of the media? If there is no quote or confirmation, then we can't assume it's from from an interviewed/expert source as that would be wp:or, and therefore "by the media" is more appropriate. "In the media" is subject to interpretation, and can lead readers to think/believe the quote may be from an interviewed/expert source when it appears we have no confirmation of that. (But if we do, this is all moot. I just haven't gone thru all the refs). - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  16:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are not bound by Wiki policy, we can use OR which they've performed. –dlthewave ☎ 17:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's odd... your friend K.e. basically told me just the opposite only a short while ago... - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  18:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Either version strikes me as both unnecessary and a violation of NPOV. For anything to be "widely characterized" it more or less must be reported in the media.  Therefore to add "by the media" (or "in the media", which at least is more accurate) is not necessary (especially since the statement is immediately followed by references to said media).  The NPOV concern comes because in the context of this article's subject, "the media" have often been demonized, declared the enemy of America, etc., so adding this unnecessary phrase sounds like an attempt to discredit or undermine what is actually just a simple statement of fact.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 17:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So who is making the characterization? Do any of the articles cite a source for the claim?  If not it's an opinion shared in the media in which case it should be noted as such.  I think the NPOV claim is a stretch in this case.  Springee (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * who is making the characterization? - irrelevant. Again, the only way something can be "widely characterized" is for it to be reported in the media, regardless of whether such reports attribute the sentiment to some specific individual.  In fact, "widely characterized" precisely means it's not just a few individuals making this claim.  Since we cannot quote more than a few individuals, it's an impossible standard for this article to establish the truth of that statement in any way other than giving references to media articles.  Anyway, I just added another reference that is not exactly media (it's a press release from an organization) and that attributes precisely this phrase to someone specific.  Probably I can find more, but no more are needed.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 17:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

(@Waleswatcher) Clarifying whether a quote is from a media source or the media itself is important, even crucial in some cases, regardless of "how it makes the media look". If we stick to facts, then if something the media has done that may reflect on them in a certain light, is not because of our actions, but their's. Take this "weapon of choice" quote for example. We post that then attach a source, (eg: CNN, NYT, etc,) then that gives the impression that whomever the media outlet is using as source material (eg: the FBI, the police, etc.) is responsible for that quote. But if it was the reporter or journalist themselves that added that quote to the report of their own accord, that is distinction we need to make. And, quite frankly, I don't see how that in any way "demonizes" the media, but neither do I see how it's our responsibility to safeguard the media's reputation. Like I said, as long as we stick to facts, then how it makes the media look is their problem, not ours. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  17:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Who is making the claim isn't at all irrelevant. Your new addition says that a gun control group makes the claim. OK. So we have new media opinion and anti-gun group. That doesn't make your case stronger. Do we have actual criminologist or other experts making the claim? Springee (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That is incoherent. Showing that yet another report (and an individual) made this statement obviously strengthens the claim that AR-15s are "widely characterized" this way; to assert otherwise is simply nonsense.  And how is an official at a gun control organization not an expert on gun use in crimes?  And how is the New York Times "new media"?  You're not making any sense.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 19:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed several times before but the consensus hasn't stuck. I think it's time to get more eyes with either an RfC or WP:RSN posting. –dlthewave ☎ 19:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * By forcing one groups opinions and failing to compromise is not how a consensus is made.


 * The rifle being the U.S. rifle of choice and thereby relatively cheap and readily available would lead to the opinion of choice than some redeeming factor. This assumption made by the media is just a one sided claim based on opinion. This would be only opinion and not fact based on there is no source in law enforcement that some redeeming factor made this distinction. By not stating this clarification that is made by the media you would promote a distinction that is just not true and mislead the readers. The source outside the media that made these comments "with the AR-15 used this morning, a weapon of war that now happens to be the weapon of choice in far too many mass killings in America." This source is filled with inaccuracies and is clearly just restating the medias comments simple because they support there views. The source is not a independently neutral or even a expert in the field of firearms or of any law enforcement agency.


 * I would like to point out there is now a movement by student in support of fire arms now like the opposition against. I state this to remind all of a need to find balance.


 * I truly believe no editor here is looking to exclude these horrid act form Wikipedia. But clearly there is a time and place for this content and by attempting to out weigh article content or introducing overly bias views is clearly not conducive to enriching Wiki articles.


 * I would like to post my support of "by". -72bikers (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Expert commentary

 * Comment: the claim does not originate from the media. For example:
 * Pete Blair, executive director of Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center -- which studies mass murder -- echoed Hazen's comments. “The AR is the most popular rifle platform in the U.S.,” Blair said. The fact that so many mass shooters are using the same gun is what sociologists call “social proof,” he added.
 * More at: Why AR-15-style rifles are popular among mass shooters, ABC News. Thus this edit should stand. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * re But this would be only opinion and not fact based on there is no source in law enforcement that made this distinction outside the media - no, it's not just the media making this "claim", but experts in the field, as shown in this section (immediately above). --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Restore original statement and clarify. -72bikers (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The experts in your article don't use the phrase "weapon of choice". If we are going to use that phrase we should be careful how it's supported.  The article author said it but not the experts they interviewed. Perhaps we should use a more neutral expression. Springee (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree the experts he claim only state "(In some mass shootings), the shooter had low knowledge of firearms. They just grabbed what they know, and that’s the AR-15.” and “The AR is the most popular rifle platform in the U.S.,” Blair said." -72bikers (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "The experts in your article don't use the phrase "weapon of choice". If we are going to use that phrase we should be careful how it's supported. The article author said it but not the experts they interviewed." - and that is a clear example of a statement made  by the media and is precisely why we need to make the distinction  between some reporter and an actual expert. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  18:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources that paraphrase the words of experts are used throughout Wikipedia. Could you point me to the policy or guideline that contradicts this common practice? –dlthewave ☎ 21:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"Paraphrasing" an expert interview ee is one thing, an interview er injecting their own personal, non-expert and even biased opinion is quite another. You wanna show me a policy that specifically allows that? - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  03:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't see how you could assert "weapon of choice" from the claimed experts. In fact as I already pointed out, exact words were "In some mass shootings", not sure how any reasonable person could paraphrase "weapon of choice" from that. -72bikers (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

As others have said, it is not only the media making this claim, so we cannot say (or imply) it is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So far we have some media sources and a gun control group making the claim. I would suggest we simple drop the phrase "of choice" and use a more neutral phrasing.  "Weapon of choice" is a problematic wp:label so dropping it rather than arguing about who applied it may be the best solution. Springee (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If we were saying this as a fact, maybe. We are not we are saying it as an opinion (which it is). Has anyone (RS) said it is not a weapon of choice?Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Your question is irrelevant because we don't have to find a source that says that to dispute a contentious label. It's a contentious label and we should bypass the issue by just not using it. It's not of encyclopedic value so rather than argue we can sidestep the issue. Springee (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes we do, otherwise it is not contentious. NPOV means we include all signification viewpoints, if no viewpoint is expressed by RS that is contrary to what we include we do not have to include it. We have stated this is a widely held opinion, it is. Now do you have any RS for your claim it is one only held by the media?Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * RS that disputes the claim []. Now let's call the spade what it is. Springee (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a blog (and is SPS to boot). But by all means lets say that is most crimes AR-15 type guns are not used...ohh wait we already do. So in fact we do already point this out. Now lets see if this source says it is only the media that say that this class of weapon is the problem "Politicians, activists, and journalists who have decided to blame mass shootings on "assault weapons" either do not acknowledge these facts or wave them away." So no he does not in fact say this is a view only held by the media.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Reason Magazine is not a self published source. The author is a senior editor with the magazine.  This would be the equivalent of an editorial page in a newspaper.  When considering such sources we can consider the quality of the arguments being made.  WE also have other sources who dispute the label [][].  Vox attributes the statement... to the Boston Globe [].  This earlier Reason article noted that a number of sources were saying that "assault weapons", not the AR-15 specifically, were the weapons of choice.  Seems inconsistent but why do we need to get details right? Once again, the easy solution is simply remove the label. Springee (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No we do not take into account the quality of the arguments made (that is OR) we take into account who wrote it. And again, we have material about what guns are most commonly used in crime. "“Assault weapons are not as commonplace in mass shootings as some gun-control advocates believe,”", not the media (you will note). As to your last but one source, it only talks about a bans effects on mass shooting, not the commonality of use. As to your last source, we already have more then the Boston Globe, so it is redundant.Slatersteven (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Quality of argument does come in context where establishing weight. So we can give more weight to those who actually make a case that the weapon of choice label is wrong if the other side isn't making an argument why it's correct.  The passage you quoted is correct but could also be expanded to included the press.  Are you in support of such an expansion?  Clearly we have other news sources that claim they label is wrong. The NR article contradicts the use of the label by stating that handguns are the weapon of choice based on the data.  The same data used by Reason.  The Vox source is illustrative as to how this label became misapplied to the AR-15 (and assault weapons).  At the end of the day we have a label that we can avoid without reducing the quality of the article.  Why would we keep it? Springee (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Your point is not "also includes then press" it is "only includes the press". And again we already include the information about handguns. None of your arguments for exclusion stand up to scrutiny, we do include the rebuttal information, we do not say it is a fact. Moreover this was not what this was about, it was about only the media saying it (and thus that is what we should say), which is also not true. Now if you want to expand it to say "characterized as such by Politicians, guns rights activists and the media", well that is unnecessary verbosity when we caq just say what we say now, "widely characterized". Exclusion of the "label" is another issue, a separate one.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you didn't get the argument right. Regardless, rather than argue about how to limit the scope of who applied the label, follow wp:label and remove the controversial label. Springee (talk) 10:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

od"@AzureCitizen, Waleswatcher, and Kevinp2: We recently had a bit of a back and fourth about a small change to the article originating with this edit 29. AzureCitizen is correct that with this double back and forth we need to go to the talk page next. I agree with Kevinp2's edit. Reading through the sources, is the "weapon of choice" claim something the reporters are quoting from an interviewed source or is it a statement/claim the reporter has put forth. It appears to me this is something the reporters have put forth as part of their articles which would mean we should make it clear that this is a claim made in the media vs say from the FBI. Thus adding something like "in the media" or "by the media" makes it clear where the claim originates." This is the point raised, the one we are disusing. As to WP:label, I suggest you read it, it does not forbid us form using labels. And does not seem to cover "labels" like the one we are using here.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, we started with a RS question but I've raised the label question. It is a contentious label and we've shown that RSs disagree with its application here. Springee (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So have you now closed the question about adding "the media", do you now accept that is not a valid point? We cannot talk about two separate issues in the same thread.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I'm bypassing the argument. Springee (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please start a new section or subsection if you would like to raise a different objection. Jumping from one issue to another within the same thread does not help us build consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 12:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's still relevant and this is where the discussion had gone. If you wish to create a separate soon topic you are welcome to.  I've bought up label as a way to bypass the disagreement about sources.  The label is controversial and no evidence exists that experts agree.  Thus we can either be specific about who applied the label, some media, pro-gun control politicians and gun control groups, or we can avoid the problem by removing a contentious label per wp:label. Springee (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

By the media seems reasonable given that it is a very narrow view of mass shootings only brought up by the media. I have not seen an expert actually make that claim. Basically a minority of mass shootings use AR-15 style rifles with the rest overwhelmingly being handguns. Feels like reaching to me. PackMecEng (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I am asking an uninvolved user to close this as it is now rambling all over the place and is becoming unfocused. We now now discussing at least two separate matters (maybe more). I think it is going to be nigh impossible to get consensus on the original question, and it is only clouding the new issues keeping this open.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't a RfC. Since the discussion is focused on the content there is no reason to closet it.  No one is required to reply if they don't wish to. Springee (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well lets put it like this, you do not have consensus for whatever suggestion you have made. All we are doing is going round a series of circular arguments that keep getting modified whenever an objection is raised. All that is happening is this thread is being kept open for no good purpose now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are free to drop out of the discussion if you feel you have nothing to add. The WP:Label question hasn't been addressed by the wider group and what we do have is a dispute about the validity of material that hasn't been in the article for that long hence we shouldn't assume the text as-is represents the consensus view and currently there are more editors who favor a change than not.  This isn't a long established passage.  Perhaps we both should propose modifications to the texts that might placate both sides (I'm pointing fingers at both of us).  If I get some time today I'll give it a shot.  Springee (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Until l we have a firm decision on what we are discussing I cannot propose or support any modification. I thus oppose any change until such time as I know what we are actually discussing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree with Slatersteven. Springee, if you wish to propose removing this "label" as you characterize it, please start a new discussion in a new section of the talk page.  Suddenly changing course deep in a thread on something else is not the way to build consensus for a change, as I'm sure you're well aware.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 13:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Walewatcher, I didn't suddenly change the course. I've made the label argument almost from the beginning.  The discussion centered around the text in question, I offered the alternative to the protracted RS discussion.  Still, rather than debate that, why don't we look forward to ways to edit the text to make all involved satisfied.  I've taken a crack at that below.  Springee (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed text changes
As a way past the above I would propose the following changes to the text. It consists of a neutral intro sentence that says we have a controversy (exact phrasing could use work). The next sentence is almost verbatim other than I removed "widely" from "characterized as". Finally, I added a following sentence where the label is disputed with sources. I thought about putting some of the reasons why the label is disputed in that sentence but left them out for now.
 * AR-15 style rifles as well as similar rifles have become controversial due to their use in mass shootings.[Intro sentence, no additional citation] While most gun killings in the United States are with handguns,[52][53][54] AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile"[52] mass shootings in the United States, and have come to be characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes[55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63].  The accuracy of this characterization, however, has been disputed[WP, Reason, NR articles]. AR-15 variants have been used in mass shootings in the United States including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 2012 Aurora shooting, 2015 San Bernardino attack,[4] the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting,[64] the 2017 Las Vegas shooting,[64] and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.[65]

This text puts the label in context and shows that it isn't universally accepted and that it isn't accurate. At the same time it doesn't add the qualifiers that were points of objection above. The intro sentence to the section is something that is needed because the current text doesn't really have one. Springee (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. An intro sentence might be a good idea, but yours is redundant with what immediately follows.  Furthermore you removed "widely" for no reason.  Lastly, if we are going to include references that dispute that AR-15s are in fact the weapon of choice for mass shootings on the grounds that handguns are used more, we should move the "While most gun killings in the United States are with handguns.." phrase and its citations to after the sentence about the characterization, to where the dispute is described.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 13:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This says the same thing twice thus violates undue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The current handgun statement refers to crimes in general. The later sentence I added specifically addresses the "weapon of choice" label.  They aren't redundant but I agree that a grouping of the two would perhaps flow better.  I removed widely because we have sources that dispute it and many sorces don't use it.  But I wouldn't fight to keep it out if we can come to an agreement on the rest of the text.  WW, I'm not in love with the intro sentence, do you have a suggestion? Springee (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops edit timing, I see a reply below. Springee (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2018 (UTc)
 * Which source disputes the claim "widely characterized"? As far as I can tell not one of your sources said this was not a widely held view, just an incorrect one.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Which sources support "widely characterized"? "Widely" is a judgement call that wiki editors added.  I think this sort of thing comes up in various articles.  How do we as editors decide when something is say a "widely held belief" vs a "belief held by many" vs just a "belief".  Your point is good but it actually supports removal of "widely" vs keeping it.  Springee (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We decide based upon the number of sources that we would have to attribute. This is not some minority view held by a few, the shear number of sources makes that clear.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So we do OR to make the call? Springee (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not OR to say a lot of people hold the view. Really I do not get this objection. We do not need to source the blindly obvious, and it is blindly obvious that this ism a widely held view. Even some of your sources make it clear this is a view held across a large spectrum of people ("Even horror author Anne Rice"). It is colloquially called short hand, using one word to replace ten "Politicians, activists, journalists, Anne Rice" (and god knows who else, after all are all those kids "activists).Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's simple. You said we can't remove "widely" without a source that says it isn't a widely held view.  As I said, I'm not going to die on that hill but it's logically wrong to say we need a source to dispute "widely" when we don't have one that actually makes the claim in the first place.  "Widely" currently comes from the opinion of the involved editors, not from a RS.  So, how can we judge "widely"?  If we say, well 15 sources say it, is that widely or just the benefit of web text searches.  Conversely, did we search the number of related sources that didn't say it?  Kind of hard since that is the web search equivalent of proving a negative.  In the end, "widely" is an opinion of how often this characterization occurs and it was an opinion offered by Wikipedia editors, not our sources.  Any time we add a subjective modifier to express quantity (widely, many, a lot, etc) it's subject to dispute.  In many cases it isn't challenged but sometimes it is.  I think it should be removed from the text but I'm not going to oppose an otherwise good compromise for that single word.  That doesn't mean you are correct.  So do you have any proposals for how we can improve the text that has been suggested?  Springee (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Then we are not going to get a compromise, because unless we list everyone who has said this (to demonstrate how widely (or not)) it is held no text will be satisfactory. So we cannot change it, as we have no consensus for changing it. Widely does not mean majority or even Massively, it just means by a large number of people. As (I said I find your objections to the use of the word bizarre.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That is an illogical conclusion and not supported by policy or guidelines. Compromise is "I'm not going to die on that hill".  If it's so important to you to keep it fine, we can keep it even though it's a subjective editorial call, not a RS'ed statement.  Widely is going to depend on the number of people involved.  A view widely held in a group of say 200 people might mean 150.  The same 150 people holding the view out of a population of 10,000 is no longer widely held.  So again, "widely" is a context dependent statement.  It's fine for you to say "seems widely to me" but where your arguments failed is when you said it would take a RS to remove the claim of widely even though we don't have a RS that makes the claim.  Again, I'm not going to hold things up because you don't want to remove that word.  Just understand that your argument, "Which source disputes the claim "widely characterized"?"  Well which RS supports the claim "widely characterized"?  If you can't cite one then we certainly don't need one to remove the claim. Springee (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Then replace it with a full list of all those who think it, I see it as a short hand for that list. But if you are not happy wityh the shorthand write it long hand.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's a nonsense suggestion to a problem you seem to have invented. Yes, I don't think we have a RS that supports the claim "widely" and per policy I believe it can be removed.  However, as I've repeatedly said (again you seem to have missed this), I'm not going to fight to remove it.  However, you offered the nonsense idea that we would need a RS to say it isn't widely held.  My point this whole time is that such statements, if challenged, normally need RS support, not the opposite as you claim.  We sure have wasted a lot of text arguing about this.  Perhaps you could offer a rewrite suggestion as to how we might incorporate the RS objections to the characterization into the text.  Springee (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said when we have a firm idea of what it is that is being objected to maybe. So what is it, the exclusion of Media, the inclusion of widely the use the the term "weapon of choice", or something else that I have missed or you have not thought of yet?Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit break)
My proposal:

AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile"[52] mass shootings in the United States, and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.[55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63] AR-15 variants have been used in many mass shootings in the United States, including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 2012 Aurora shooting, 2015 San Bernardino attack,[4] the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting,[64] the 2017 Las Vegas shooting,[64] and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.[65] [AND THE WAFFLE HOUSE SHOOTING?]  However, the accuracy of this characterization has been disputed [REFS], as most gun killings [AND MASS SHOOTINGS?] in the United States are with handguns.[52][53][54]  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 13:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose We should not put the first sentence in Wikipedia's voice.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * More work needed but progress, I agree with Slatersteven's wikivoice concern. I think an intro sentence and some type of preface would work there.  I wouldn't add additional shootings without consensus since that has been a separate area of dispute.  The "However, the accuracy of this characterization" is vague.  If it doesn't immediately follow the "weapon of choice" sentence then we should say something like, "the accuracy of the "weapon of choice" characterization...".  Also, the current handgun vs rifle sources were supporting a statement about crime in general.  The sources I recently proposed specifically dispute the "weapon of choice" statement and are talking specifically about mass shootings, not crime in general.  We should keep that clear in the text.  Still, I think we are moving forward.  Got to go but thanks for the engagement!  Springee (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

This statement "and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes." is not accurate. The statement has only been shown to be used by the media and the one article that they put forth from there expert support, clearly only stated "In some mass shootings". Without the context of this view you are misleading the readers. If keeping this, it should be immediately followed by "However, the accuracy of this characterization has been disputed, and also that most gun killings in the United States are with handguns.-72bikers (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In defense of the text, it doesn't claim the characterization is correct only that the rifle has become "widely characterized as...". I agree that absent other context it can be misleading because it would suggest the view is widely held by experts or isn't challenged, the first hasn't been shown, and we do have RSs that challenge the statement.  What we are currently missing is inclusion of the sources that say why the characterization is wrong.  Also, as you said, we don't currently say who makes the characterization, but I think we could bypass that problem.  By include a statement explaining why other RSs disagree with the characterization it becomes less important to say who specifically makes the claim as anyone who wants to know that level of detail can read the sources. Springee (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Based on Waleswatcher's proposal:
 * Due to their use in mass shootings AR-15 style rifles as well as similar rifles have become controversial.[Intro sentence, no additional citation] AR-15 style rifles are said to play "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile"[52] mass shootings in the United States, and are widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.[55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63] AR-15 variants have been used in many mass shootings in the United States, including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 2012 Aurora shooting, 2015 San Bernardino attack,[4] the 2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting,[64] the 2017 Las Vegas shooting,[64] and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.[65]  However, the accuracy of the "weapon of choice" characterization is disputed as most mass shootings occur in the United States occure with handguns.[REFs]  Additionally, rifles overall, including AR-15s, are disproportionately not used in firearms homicides in general.[52][53][54][verify this is accurate to the refs]

Still not happy with the intro sentence. I've fixed the next sentence (which was verbatim from the current article) so it's no longer in Wiki voice. The final two sentences make the two points related to handgun vs Ar-15 crime use. So the first, directly disputes the "weapon of choice" in relation to mass shootings. The second is the more general and notes relative crime rates between handguns and rifles (what was the first sentence). Springee (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Wow, this page suddenly blew up. After trying to follow this debate, I have 2 questions; when saying this view is "widely" held... by who? If that isn't qualified in the source, then it shouldn't be added. Waaay to much undue weight attached to that. It needs to be qualified, as in an RS clearly confirming that this view is widely held by unbiased experts on this topic, not just by the reporter and his buddies in the newsroom, or by some gun-control group. We need unbiasd, expert opinions supporting this. Next question; as for the "weapons of choice" comment, again... do we have RS confirmation on this? From unbiased, expert sources? Or just a reporter? Or none at all? I haven't read through all the refs in this article, but according to 72bikers comments, there is a serious issue with this phrase. If there is going to be a straw poll here to gauge consensus on how this should be written, what stays, what goes, etc., then it should be clear just what it is we're commenting (!voting) on. I appreciate Springee's efforts here to keep this neutral, but some of the comments by a couple of the others users here have made this while thing difficult to follow. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  18:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose putting the Reason piece in there if that's the only source you have for the 'disputed' comment. It's a blog, an opinion piece, and WP:UNDUE relative to the overwhelming weight of the sources you're trying to weigh it against.  If it is as controversial a position as you believe it to be, it should be easy to find mainstream non-opinion pieces commenting on that fact; conversely, if a blog post is the best you can come up with disputing it, it seems reasonable to say that it is not, in fact, all that controversial.  The final sentence, from the way you're wording it, looks like WP:SYNTH - we can only use those sources if they specifically talk about the claim that AR-15s are the weapon of choice for mass shooters.  --Aquillion (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Reason's editorial is as reliable as any other and is absolutely main stream. However, it isn't the only source that disputes the claim. I've included the others in a previous edit.  The handgun vs rifle claim is already in the article and was discussed at the time of inclusion.  Springee (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To expand on the above, here are some rifle/AR-15 vs handgun sources. HuffPo[] that starts with the broad statement about "assault weapons" but also ties that back to AR-15s as a subtype of "assault weapon".  Same HuffPo reporter a few years later[].  Here's the NYT making the same connection for us [].
 * The the sources that counter the "of choice: claim are, Reason (more than once), Washpost[], and National Review []. We also have statistical sources [], WashPost again but in a more round about way (9mm semiautomatic handguns show up more than any other weapon) [],  Washington Examiner, specifically noting "media hype about mass shootings" stating handguns, not 'assault rifles' used most [] Springee (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I again point out they have no expert support, in fact there only claimed expert to support them only states "In some mass shootings". This only supports what we are saying, so we have expert support in there eyes on this label not being accurate-72bikers (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence in the crime section is opinion. "AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile"[53] mass shootings in the United States, and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes" makes zero factual claims.

What is "an oversized role"? The article cited as support doesn't give statistics that say AR15 use in crimes is disproportionate compared to gun ownership for example. "High profile" is a value judgement and listing those crimes specifically is a much better approach, which is done at least partially already in the section. A citation of FBI statistics such as they exist would be a better approach at the same content as well.

"Widely characterized as a weapon of choice" is also problematic. Why is a value judgement on the prevalence of a belief useful content? There isn't any poll to support this claim and it would be better to directly cite experts rather than a straight appeal to a perceived wisdom of the crowd. The citations offer weak support of those claims at best, and for several I'd say it's an intentional misreading of the article. Plucking opinion sentences from a news article is still opinion, the fact that you need 9 citations on this clause is ludicrous from a style standpoint as well. A better way to have similar content is to mention the political support for a reinstatement of law that ban AR15s, this is verifiable and gives context to an arguably important policy opinion in the current day.68.62.102.135 (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Combine
If no one objects I would like to combine the ten references for the media distinction, so that it does not hamper the reading of the content. When the above conversation is done.-72bikers (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

RSN Discussion
I opened a discussion at RSN to solicit wider input. –dlthewave ☎ 14:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Village pump discussion on "Should the section Colt AR-15 be a copy of the lead of AR-15 style rifle"?
Here.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 21:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Admin notes
protected the wrong version before, I'm protecting another wrong version now. I will also be placing AP-style editing restrictions on the article. An article version needs to be deemed stable for reference purposes - the version I protected will do. This is not an endorsement of the content. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)