Talk:Mass shootings in the United States/Archive 1

"Prevalence of locations where victims are disarmed and unable to defend themselves"
An IP recently added this --- One of the sources used  is simply Rick Perry's opinion. Per WP:Weight I do not think the material belongs in the article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Date vs year in table
I would prefer to keep just the year in the table. Adding the full date makes the table even larger than it is and I don't think the specific date really adds any more relevant information. If someone wants specifics about a particular shooting, all they need to do is click through to its article. Perhaps Blysbane, you could explain your reasoning for adding the dates? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 19:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just using the year is fine, but for readability, put it to the right of the "Deaths" column. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks for your comment, I've reverted it back to just year. Bellow is what the table would look like with the year moved to be the third column. I'm not a fan because it separates the incident from the year it occurred, but I'll wait for yours and others opinions. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 14:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yah, looks better with year in the second column. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Perpetrator's names in table
How is putting the names of the perpetrators in the table "too specific". It is not listing the specific weapons used in the shootings or the listing the date of the shootings. If I wanted to, I would make the table include every mass shooting with 3 deaths and above, the date of the shootings, number of injured, and the exact weapons used in the shootings. But I do not intend to put the specifics on the list as that is not simple and glorifies the perpetrators. The information that I included is not intended to glorify these tragedies nor do I believe simply listing the first and last names of the perpetrators increases a copycat effect that is a motive for a lot of shootings. The information's intent is to be simple and important --Blysbane (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Other shootings.
What about Wounded Knee, Waco, Ruby Ridge ? Dkaegi (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2018
- ! !! Incident !! Year !! Deaths !! Type of weapon(s) used !! Reference(s) Asdflars (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Rejected due to not being a change. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 23:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Market Street Massacre

 * The cut off point is the top 20 deadliest; equal 20th are those incidents resulting in 10 deaths. With 8/9 killed, this falls outside of the top 20. The reference isn't reliable either. One of the reasons that the list begins in 1949, is that incidents before that are not well sourced and therefore difficult to verify. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 06:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * There's three refs there but only the web one displayed. Others are easy to find, e.g. https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ZLEKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LE4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4107,2674818&dq= http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,853406,00.html Multiple photos of victims and perpetrator had been taken.  Sourcing didn't get magically better in 1949, what's the source for that claim?  Also, "c. 1949 onwards" doesn't mean "1949 onwards" but "approximately 1949 onwards," which fits 1948.  And johnstonsarchive.net which is used repeatedly in the article is reliable?  A physicist's personal website?  Please. "Top 20" is arbitrary and an odd way of putting it.  Thanks for the reminder of why WP is not worth trying to edit.  Cheers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:E7C7:AF00:C8D8:FE6:F349:DE10 (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the other references. However, it still stands that with 8 or 9 deaths this incident was not one of the most deadliest in US history. This article is not a list article, although it does contain a list section. There has to be a cut off point of inclusion: in this case the deadliest incidents all resulted in double figure deaths. Including those resulting in 8 or 9 deaths would greatly increase the size of the table. You may wish to look at List of rampage killers (Americas), which is a list article, and included the incident you are referring to. The reason 1950 is used as a cut off point is twofold: firstly it is the cut off point used by many of the sources, and secondly it was the Camden shootings of 1949 that triggered greater coverage and accuracy in reporting such incidents. The fact that, even with multiple sources, it is impossible to ascertain whether there were 8 or 9 deaths from the so called "Market Street massacre" shows the difficulties with the reporting of these incidents pre-Camden. I hope this explanation is satisfactory and please don't be put off editing. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 20:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Good idea for an article, but it needs work.
 * 1) The table format is awkward and restricting
 * 2) Wouldn't a simple list be more...simple?
 * 3) Why limit the list at 20?  Long lists are not a problem for Wikipedia.
 * 4) Why are the items listed by arbitrary names, but not names we can all agree on: location or name of shooter, or both.  This is very hard to follow.  I just added Mark O. Barton which has no arbitrary name that I know of.  'The day trade shooter'?  Makes no sense.
 * 5) Why a seperate column of references?  Lists are  more clear. Johnsagent (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Johnsagent, the table is there so it can be sorted: at the moment it is ordered by number of deaths but the "sortability" of a table means a reader can quickly order it by weapon used or year. The limit is there because this is not a list article. There are comprehensive list articles elsewhere (i.e. List of rampage killers). Mark O. Barton is listed at List of rampage killers (workplace killings). What you classify as "arbitrary names" are consistent with WP:COMMON NAME (i.e. " the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources"): Wikipedia isn't here to make up names for things, we use what the sources use.
 * Could we please discuss the inclusion/exclusion of Mark O. Barton? The main issue is that this is about an article about "mass shootings", not spree killings or attacks using non-guns. Precedent has already been set with the GMAC shootings: this was a series of shootings but the attack on 18 June counts as a mass shooting and resulted in ten deaths so that is included rather than the total across all the shootings. In the case of Barton, he used a hammer (not a gun) in the attack on his family and a gun during the attack on his work. Therefore, it is only the mass shooting on 29 July which would be included in the table: | 1999 | 10 (including the perpetrator) | Handguns. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 23:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just looked at WP:CommonNames and I don't think you're following it correctly. The emphasis must be on understanding and maxium recognition.  I've been paying attention and haven't heard of half of them.  I see no reason why adding the preps name or perhaps another major identifier would hinder the article in anyway.  I agree with Blysbane.  In addition, I fail to see much difference between mass shootings, spree killers, postal killings, rampage killers and serial killers.  Your lead paragraph should be more comprehensive as well as definitive.  And what was your reason for including only 20 again? Johnsagent (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes WP:Common Name is begin used correctly: "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) ... When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.". Whether you know these attacks by that name or is redundant: we rely on reliable sources to give us the name, or if that's lacking, we come to a WP:Consensus as editors.
 * This is an article about Mass shootings in the United States. It is not an article about Mass shooters in the United States. The aim of the section with the table is to provide a brief list of the "Deadliest shootings": it is not a comprehensive list of all mass shootings. The contents of the table reflect what is discussed in the article above: The section originally contained only the 10 deadliest but as this resulted in many notable shootings being omitted, it was expanded to 20. As I've already said, this is not a list article (comprehensive lists already exist elsewhere, eg List of rampage killers (Americas)) and so there has to be a limit: 20 is a reasonable limit.
 * You start by saying you haven't heard of half of them and therefore the names must be wrong, and then you go on to say you don't understand the differences between mass shootings/spree killers/postal killings etc. The definition of mass shooting is given in the opening paragraph: "A mass shooting is usually defined as a shooting resulting in at least four victims, excluding the perpetrator". This is clearly different to the definition of Spree killer as given at that article "A spree killer is someone who kills two or more victims in a short time in multiple locations.". Using the example of Mark O. Barton:


 * he is both a spree killer and a mass shooter
 * Spee = killing his family (on 27 July) and attacking his former work places (on 29 July): within two/three days counts as a short period of time
 * Mass shooting = attacking his former work places (with a gun and within the same continuous incident).
 * Serial killer = he allegedly killed members of his family in 1993 and then killed members of his family in 1998, the length of time between these acts with multiple victims would make him a serial killer.
 * Does this example help you understand the differences? As for serial killers, if If not, please do some further reading yourself: Wikipedia has various articles on these matters or you can find another source.
 * It is not "my opening paragraph": Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and you are more than welcome to expand it yourself. I'm going to change the entry for Barton (its now called "Atlanta shootings" as this is what a number of sources call it) to reflect that only the workplace shooting was a mass shooting. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit
Please see diff; the restored text included: "A mass shooting is defined by the Reddit subforum "Guns are cool" as a shooting resulting in at least four victims..." This must have been some vandalism that slipped in. I reverted the change. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears that the user only read the first few sentences of the source without bothering to read the rest of it, or the other sources. Seemingly a blind reversion. Also they removed a huge chunk of the article that was sourced in the Weapons Used section. R9tgokunks   ✡  06:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The first source:
 * [[tq|Since then, the crowd-sourced Mass Shooting Tracker has become a near-daily source of information about shootings in the United States. It's a crowd-sourced list of all shooting incidents in which four or more people are killed or injured by gunfire, culled mainly from media reports. Reddit users submit mass shooting incidents on the subreddit's page, which then feeds the standalone Tracker website.}} is the "4 or more killed." Not "federal law." That's just made up bullshit.

For starters, it's important to realize that there has never been one universally accepted definition of a “mass shooting.” The government has never even defined "mass shooting" as a stand-alone category. and The FBI used to consider someone a "mass murderer" if they killed four or more people during one event, regardless of weapons used. But starting in 2013, federal statutes defined "mass killing" as three or more people killed, regardless of weapons. And unlike the tracker, the tally doesn't include the killer if he or she is eventually killed by law enforcement or takes his or her own life. So now we have mass killing (death by any means of 3 or more), mass murderer is one who kills 4 ore more people and the reddit group that says mass shooting is 4 or more that are killed or injured. See the problem of conflating all different stuff into one and claiming it has any kind of acceptance? Further, Mother Jones (the other source) says Broadly speaking, the term refers to an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence. But there is no official set of criteria or definition for a mass shooting, according to criminology experts and FBI officials contacted by Mother Jones. and here's Mother Jones in 2012 We honed our criteria accordingly: The attack must have occurred essentially in a single incident, in a public place; We excluded crimes of armed robbery, gang violence, or domestic violence in a home, focusing on cases in which the motive appeared to be indiscriminate mass murder; The killer, in accordance with the FBI criterion, had to have taken the lives of at least four people. and now in 2018, the data Mother Jones has for the graph lists their "mass shootings" - number 5 on the list is 3 deaths. More bullshit. So now it points to their new guide In January 2013, a mandate for federal investigation of mass shootings authorized by President Barack Obama lowered that baseline to three or more victims killed. Accordingly, we include attacks dating from January 2013 in which three or more victims died. So did either of you read this? It's all shifting sand definitions with no definitions and the article is blatantly synthesizing datasets, definitions and conclusion. Some are listing only 4 or more killed, some are three or more killed, some are 4 or more killed or injured, some include Domestice Violence, robberies, and gang violence while some exclude some or all. It all needs to be unwound and attributed. --DHeyward (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by R9tgokunks
 * You're seemingly keen on calling things you don't agree with "[made up] bullshit." The Washington Post is a highly reliable source in regards to it's reporting, and perfect for use on Wikipedia, in that regard. Also, this statement is cited by both The Washington Post and Mother Jones. The information is included in both sources.


 * WaPo:

""But starting in 2013, federal statutes defined "mass killing" as three or more people killed, regardless of weapons""


 * Mother Jones:

""In January 2013, a mandate for federal investigation of mass shootings authorized by President Barack Obama lowered that baseline to three or more victims killed.""


 * A quick search on Google comes up with the law, signed on Jan 14, 2013 (amendments made to the "Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012") as posted on Congress.gov, which has not been changed:

""(I) the term ‘mass killings’ means 3 or more killings in a single incident;""


 * R9tgokunks  ✡  09:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Factually incorrect definition
The lede makes the rather astounding claim that "A mass shooting, according to the United States federal law, is usually defined as a shooting resulting in at least 3 victims, excluding the perpetrator." The only source provided for this claim, isn't one of the federal government's many websites, but rather, a Washington Post article that is referencing the standards used by a Reddit project! In fact, the FBI's definition for a "mass-shooting" is explained thus by the Congressional Research Service (a branch of the Federal Government that's sometimes called "Congress' think tank"): "According to the FBI, the term 'mass murder' has been defined generally as a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered, within one event, and in one or more locations in close geographical proximity. Based on this definition, for the purposes of this report, 'mass shooting' is defined as a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, within one event, and in one or more locations in close proximity. Similarly, a 'mass public shooting' is defined to mean a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, within one event, in at least one or more public locations, such as, a workplace, school, restaurant, house of worship, neighborhood, or other public setting." https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44126.pdf (emphasis added) So the claim that "according to the United States federal law, (a mass-shooting) is usually defined as a shooting resulting in at least 3 victims" is patently untrue and as such, must be removed. Bricology (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by R9tgokunks
 * The title of this post is misleading, as well as some of the wording of the post. Also, it doesn't seem like you read the sources attached to the sentence thoroughly enough. There are two sources with this information. This statement is cited by both The Washington Post and Mother Jones. The information is included in both sources.


 * WaPo:

""But starting in 2013, federal statutes defined "mass killing" as three or more people killed, regardless of weapons""


 * Mother Jones:

""In January 2013, a mandate for federal investigation of mass shootings authorized by President Barack Obama lowered that baseline to three or more victims killed.""


 * A quick search on Google comes up with the law, signed on Jan 14, 2013 (amendments made to the "Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012") as posted on Congress.gov, which has not been changed:

""(I) the term ‘mass killings’ means 3 or more killings in a single incident;""


 * R9tgokunks  ✡  09:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm very busy right not, but I'd like to point everyone to Mass shooting were there is already a pretty comprehensive and fully cited section concerning the definition. Particularly this bit:
 * "A crowdsourced data site cited by CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Economist, the BBC, etc., Mass Shooting Tracker, defines a mass shooting as any incident in which four or more people are shot, whether injured or killed.[6][15] As of November 2017, the FBI defines a mass shooting as an incident involving "four or more people shot at once."[16]"


 * Four or more people shot in a single incident is the definition of mass shooting as used by the press, nonprofit groups and the FBI. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe federal law trumps that. But also see at Politifact: :
 * ""''As noted above, there is no widely accepted definition of mass shootings. People use either broad or restrictive definitions of mass shootings to reinforce their stance on gun control.


 * After the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting, Congress defined "mass killings" as three or more homicides in a single incident. The definition was intended to clarify when the U.S. Attorney General could assist state and local authorities in investigations of violent acts and shootings in places of public use.""


 * R9tgokunks  ✡  22:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The main issue with "your" definition is the wording: "mass killings" vs "mass shootings". This is an article concerning the latter and so the definition we should be using should be specifically about the latter. Saying that "mass killings" equals "mass shootings" is incorrect. Its like using a definition of restaurant in fast food outlet article: they aren't equivalent. The definition of mass killings is from 2012/13. Looking at more recent definitions: FBI (2017) = "four or more people shot at once", and Congressional Research Service (2015) = "multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, within one event, and in one or more locations in close proximity". I'm going to change the definition back to four or more victims. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 10:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * That is invalid. We are not here to play semantics. Read the sources provided. They all corroborate this in the context of "mass shooting."
 * R9tgokunks  ✡  16:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You can have a mass killing without firearms. You can have a mass shooting without any fatalities. Stop trying to use thew terms interchangably. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Highlighting in table
Is it really necessary to have each and every entry that "Was previously the deadliest mass shooting" highlighted in bright neon-lime green? There is specific column for number of "Deaths" and the table is sortable. This just seems like a needless distraction. If no one objects, I think it should be removed. - the WOLF  child  01:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I object. They are highlighted so that readers can tell which were formerly the deadliest shootings (obviously). If they weren't highlighted there would be no way of telling. The fact that the table is sortable is not related to highlighting the deadliest shooting: regardless of how you chose to order the table it won't tell you the above. The point of the table to provide brief information in a simple and acceptable way. Are you objecting to pointing out the previously most delay shooting or the way it is pointed out (i.e. through highlighting)? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 02:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "If they weren't highlighted there would be no way of telling." - I'm not sure why you think that. Like I said, it's a sortable table. By simply clicking the year column into descending order, anyone can see the greatest number, then look down to the the next greatest number. I don't see the difficulty in this, but just the same, I won't push the point. However, that said, I have changed the method of indication from highlighting with color to a symbol (†) as per MOS:COLOR, which states that "color alone should not be used to mark difference in text" (and we don't need both). The same incidents are noted as clearly as before, but the indicator is a little more subtle than that bright neon-lime green (or whatever you call it, which is not appropriate for this type of article). Along with that, MOS:ACCESS also applies, for those that are visually impaired by color-blindness. I believe this change should satisfy everyone's needs as well as the relevant guidelines. - the WOLF  child  12:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Type of guns used in mass shootings
I would propose we add a column to the table to include the type of weapon used in the shootings. Shaded0 (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * can you please review / update source if you update the column on this? Shaded0 (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Were you thinking of "type" (eg hand gun, shotgun, semi-automatic rife) or the specific gun (eg Smith & Wesson M&P15). I would support using type rather than anything more specific so that comparison is easier. At the moment someone who doesn't know guns (like myself and most of the world) has to click through to find out what a Ruger AR-556 is. I don't think anything is added by naming the exact gun(s). Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 16:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * the wiki articles of the events name the weapons used. but I also use for backup the following ref regardless the Ruger 556 was not used in any event but the TX Church shooting. Cdiasoh (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * to date no automatic weapon has been used on this list so I would remove the semi-automatic tag. Cdiasoh (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see this getting messy so I'm going to remove the names of guns and replace them with types. Its a summary table, if people want more information they can go to the Wiki article in question. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd disagree -- I think it's very good to draw attention to the manufacturers and gun types. Many are based upon the Colt AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle, so it is good to draw attention to this fact. I am also guessing that the type will all be "Semi-automatic rifle". Maybe split into two separate columns? Shaded0 (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As stated, its a summary article. The details of specific guns, the date and time of the attack, the victim details etc are available on the specific article. The table is there for caparison and as a list of the most deadly attacks. You could create a section discussing the specific guns used in these types of attacks if you want. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The table is supposed to be a summary. It doesn't need the specific weapon. Many of the attacks used multiple weapons. If you would like to discus the specific weapons used, add a new section to the article. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

respectfully, I still disagree. I think including the specific weapon is still an adequate level of info as a summary without overwhelming the reader. It appears we're at an impasse on this one - so I'll wait on further input from others. Shaded0 (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * While you're waiting, why don't you start a new section? Maybe call it "Weapons used". Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * thank for starting the section. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is it important to specify whether or not it was based on an AR15 design? A semi-automatic rifle tells us the important fact. Allow me to illustrate: The Colt AR-15 and Ruger Mini-14 are quite similar. Both are semi-automatic, use a box magazine, fire the same ammo and have comparable rates of fire. The only real difference is cosmetic. If any of these events used the Ruger, would there have been fewer deaths or would the victims be less injured/dead? Of course not. How does being highlighting that one is based on a AR15 design really helping, except to perhaps advance a POV about AR type rifles? I also see no need to differentiate between whether a semi-auto pistol was made by Beretta, Glock or Smith & Wesson. Semi-auto pistol is sufficient. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am ok with changing the wording with something more neutral if you feel this is appropriate. Feel free to take a look and edit with new/updated wording. I will take a look and propose if any suggestions/changes. Shaded0 (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The question is still why are you singling this out? There are 20 shootings listed there. 10 of them use no rifle at all. Of the remaining 10, 2 didn't use an AR type firearm at all. Why are you focused on the minority use? 13 of the 20 used handguns. Why aren't you focused on that? Why the part about the bump fire stock? That was used in a single instance and they make the stock for other firearms besides the AR types. Lastly, you put in a bunch of info about ammo that was used in a minority of the incidents. You are clearly trying to make a point and this is part of the issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * chill. This is the first revision and non-comprehensive at the moment. If you believe I have made notable exclusions at the moment then feel free to add or clarify. Please propose some revisions on this rather than hammering on the draft. Shaded0 (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Draft? I'm talking about the content in the actual article. That's no longer a draft . You probably should be using a draft, but you have chosen not to. I think the issue isn't "notable exclusions" as much as dubious inclusions that appear to be more agenda based than quality based. But thanks for ignring every single question I raised, choosing instead to tell me to "chill" and falsely assert that you had this all just in a draft form. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

per your points see the policy on Assume_good_faith. As much as possible, I have tried to be neutral on this. Trying to discredit my points by raising questions about my "agenda" as an editor seems to raise as much an issue. Focus on the content sir. I will step aside from this for now and let others raise points on this. Shaded0 (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, you have ignored the questions. Why is it important to specify whether or not it was based on an AR15 design? Why are you focused on the minority use? 13 of the 20 used handguns. Why aren't you focused on that? Why the part about the bump fire stock? Complaining about AGF won't make me forget about those questions. While you say you are being neutral, but I would question that based on the actual edits you've made and attempts you've made all seem to be towards one end. Calling a WP:DUCK a duck isn't lacking in good faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gaia Octavia Agrippa I checked the types of guns that were *not* listed as semi-utomatic rifles and found that in the other categories, such as "multiple weapons" and "handguns" there were some that were actually included semi-automatic rifles (in multiple weapons) and others which included semi-automatic pistols. There were only two shootings in the table which did not include a semi-automatic weapon (#6 and #8). Since it is evidently difficult to pull off a mass shooting without a semi-automatic weapon, I think we need to highlight this in the table. royjohn47 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royjohn47 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The position that it's hard to pull off a mass shooting without a semi-automatic is wrongheaded. In some cases the semi-auto is not the primary weapon used. In another, it's a semi-auto, but one made since 1908 that has a low capacity. Lastly, you're making the statement by only looking at the few listed on the table. If we accept the definition of a "mass shooting" used here and the claims of hundreds of them occuring, then how to we make a conclusion like that looking at 20-25? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Royjohn47! There was a section titled "Types of weapons used" that discussed the weapons used in more detail but it was removed. You can read this in a previous version of the article here. I'm going to re-add the well referenced part of this section. If you can find further reliable references discussing this topic, feel free to expand that section. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 01:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

follow up
I have to say, raised some very valid points in his questions and comments above (this past November). No one seemed interested in answering them and instead, the discussion ended quite abruptly. Then, of course after the Florida school shooting on February 14, there was a flurry of activity on the article, (in fact I believe it had to be protected at one point). Since then, there has been a concerted effort to add as much mass-shooting content to AR-15 related articles as possible (and then some) and vice-versa, linking AR-15 pages to mass-shooting related articles. It's at the point where several debates were shut down and directed toward an RfC at the Village Pump. That RfC is still open an on-going with no apparent consensus as of yet, but the reason I bring this up is I noticed Gaia Octavia Agrippa had also (re-)added significant content regarding AR-15s, 4 days after the Florida shooting, but, the edit summary simply said "re-added some of deleted section".

It appears this was originally put together collaboratively between Gaia and Shadedo in November then removed. I'm just curious if there was any wider discussion or consensus for this section at any point between November and a last February 19 or if it was a "bold" effort all the way? The reason I bring this up is, especially in light of all related debates, and Niteshift36's unanswered questions, I am wondering why the need to highlight the AR-15 here out of all the other weapons? It seems to be needless, undue weight. And without the specific linked mention of the AR-15, the whole "Types of weapons used" article section is redundant, as it could be removed, and "semiautomatic rifle", "handgun" and "shotgun" could just be linked in the "Types of weapons used" table section, no? That's how the article was a couple weeks ago and it was fine. It was a stable, balanced, informative article. Like I said, just curious. Cheers - the WOLF  child  14:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC) (sorry about the length)

RfC taking place elsewhere
With regard to your repeated reverts of restoring material here, your edit summary makes reference to a discussion taking place. Are you talking about the discussion at Village pump (policy)? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If I meant a discussion somewhere else, I'd have said that. I mean the discussion on this page, which Gaia has apparently abandoned.Niteshift36 (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

HEADS UP... ArbCom Discretionary Sanctions apply here
Notice the template near the top and be careful. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of properly sourced content violates numerous policies
Added later: Here is the content under discussion, primarily the single sentence in bold. I noticed that one ref was missing the quotation, which all the others have, so I have added it. I also added two semicolons. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

PackMecEng removed the addition of this well-sourced sentence with the edit summary: "misleading and poorly written". I'd like to AGF, but on this subject, on this article, it's hard to do that, so I'm giving them a chance to prove me wrong by improving it and restoring it, and, barring that, by explaining why they couldn't do that simple task.

This is a pretty blatant violation of ArbCom WP:Discretionary sanctions. Disruptive and policy violating edits get noticed.

The history of blocking all mention, even with this single sentence, of AR-15 type rifles and their use in mass-shootings, demonstrates a united rebellion against numerous policies, and the editors who do that should be topic banned. I was hoping no editors supporting that rebellion would do this, but it happened. This action is just more proof of the negative influence of WP:WikiProject Firearms, which has taken a firm anti-policy stance on this issue.

Per WP:PRESERVE, that extremely well-sourced sentence should be improved, not removed, since there is no policy against its inclusion. Even a newbie should be able to improve a single sentence. Please explain in what way it's "misleading" and why, if it's "poorly written", it couldn't have been improved, rather than deleted? It's ONE sentence. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Tone down the rhetoric and take it easy. It is misleading because AR-15 style rifles are the minority rifle used in mass shootings. The poorly written part is the end "of mass shootings by CNN,[40] CBS News,[41] and Wired magazine[42] in 2016, U.S. News & World Report[43] and USA Today[44] in 2017 and The New York Times,[45] ABC News,[46] and The Guardian[47] in 2018." Which is just a mash of jumbled links and names that to not add meaning besides trying to wp:overcite to give false validity to and misleading opinion. PackMecEng (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To add for example the rifle not being primary to mass shootings, here or anywhere with basic statics show the vast majority of mass shootings are done with handguns of some type over any rifle or shotgun. PackMecEng (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If he didn't remove it, I would have. We already have a discussion about this very matter, a discussion you've never taken part in. Perhaps you should consider that before you start forcing the sentence in. AGF a little. That said, while you and the sources focus on the most recent, you ignore the fact that less than half of the 20 listed shooting involved an AR15. More of them were committed with handguns . So why are we going to focus on a weapon used in a minority of instances? While some source may mouth the words, the actual history shows otherwise. And no, I honestly doubt those reporters have even heard of some of the ones on the list before they made their claim. Just because a source said it doesn't mean we have to use it. BTW, you know what else the Arbcom would probably notice? You making a controversial edit, then posting the DS notice in a what appears to be an attempt to intimidate editors. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Previous discussion, the essay, the policy of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms to block all mention, and the current RfC at Village Pump are all rather pointless as their first premise (except the RfC) is based on blunt force violation of policy. They are thus spurious and should be ignored. We shouldn't even need this discussion. Only tendentious editors are engaged in this blockade of all mention of the role of AR-15 style rifles in mass shootings.
 * The rest of what you write is basically WP:OTHERTHINGS and irrelevant.
 * The point made in the one sentence addition is a very notable point made by numerous RS. While notability is not a requirement for content, only for article creation, it doesn't hurt, and only strengthens the legitimacy of adding this sentence. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * When you refuse to discuss an edit already under discussion and force it in when there has been no consensus for it, you are being a tendetious editor my friend.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, let's abandon the notion that merely being sourced is the only criteria for inclusion and that removal is necessarily a violation of any policy, let alone numerous policies. We should abandon it because it's untrue. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's obviously untrue, but that's your straw man argument, since no one has made such claims. The issue is massive coverage for several years in RS, and we must allow RS to dictate content. Anything else may involve OR or outright policy violations, as has been the habit here. This must stop. NPOV does not allow censorship of content based on editors' opinions or homegrown rules, including those made by WikiProject Firearms.
 * The deletion of my addition has already been identified as a tendentious edit, so you need to do some reading, because by defending that deletion you are also a tendentious editor.
 * Here's what you need to read:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (TWC), especially the comments by User:MastCell, User:Bishonen, and User:NeilN. TWC may get off with a strong warning, but a topic ban is also a possibility.
 * The warning on User talk:PackMecEng.
 * You should take that warning to heart. Since you are supporting this tendentious behavior, a topic ban is a real possibility if you keep voicing such views and edit accordingly. To be fair, I'll post a DS template on your talk page so it's clear that you have been notified. (Now I see you have been warned on your talk page, but no DS template.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And you should stop talking to me in that condescending tone. Trying to talk to me like you're a parent not only hinders actual discussion, it could lead some people to think that you are a giant wanker not trying to be cooperative. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I have reworked and added-back the material that was removed. I believe the changes I made will be acceptable to even the grumpiest of you. Or, at least, provide a step forward. (Frankly, I'm more than a little disappointed in editors who are more interested in removing properly sourced material, than in improving it.)

Now, before anyone gets excited and undoes my edit, there are a couple of important points: The cite to statista.com references data from Mother Jones. If you think this needs a better cite, please find it, and add it. And, the sentence ending "choice for perpetrators of these crimes" includes a large number of cites on purpose, because the context requires it. If you're feeling the need to remove any of these cites, please seek consensus first. Cinteotl (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't want to weight in on most of this but please keep in mind the original material in question was added by a serial sock editor who was blocked at least 4 times in the past month. Restoring the sock's edits verbatim just encourages more bad behavior.  Thank you to Cinteotl for rewriting the material. Springee (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah I am good with Cinteotl's rewrite, a damn sight better than what was being pushed before. Thanks for the help! PackMecEng (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * While I still don't think the sentence needs including (There is a table right below it), I can live with it. See BullRangifer when you try to work with others, things can get done. Maybe give it a go sometime. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Press coverage template
I see that my original version was deleted by Niteshift36, so I have looked at it and revised it. Although mentions of the subject of mass shootings are in all the articles, only one deals specifically with this article, even if it isn't mentioned by name.

Niteshift36, this article mentions you extensively(!):


 * The adolescent cult of the AR-15, The Week

and how you made deletions to this Mass shootings article:


 * "...the section on the use of AR-15s in mass killings has been deleted from Wikipedia by a user called Niteshift36... "

In fact, you did it twice: Diff 1, Diff 2

That makes the case for mentioning that article. The template has been revised and restored accordingly. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, a writer of an opinion piece who is foolish enough to act like I actually believe I'm a Jedi focused on me for a day. The same writer of the opinion piece, who provided no balance or way to address his incorrect statements, didn't specify it was this article he was referring to, just the topic of mass shootings in general, which was being discussed on several pages at the time. Perhaps if the writer of this opinion piece were better at his job, he'd link to specific articles the way other articles did. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The article couldn't have been talking about those edits since it was published November 7th and the first time Nightshift removed material was Nov 10. Beyond that, including material that calls out editors is unproductive.  If the problem is legit it needs to go to ANI.  We are seeing a content dispute and Wikipedia has a process.  At the same time posting articles about editors is an issue I brought up in the past and the community felt was not ok.  []. We should remove the article and this talk page section for the reasons above. Springee (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A bit more detail. The article in question was published on Nov 7.  Nightshift removed general mass shooting information from the Colt AR15 page just the day before [].  Nightshifts justification was reasonable and if we look at the status today the material is not in the Colt article by consensus.  The difference is we finally addressed the real issue, the lack of a generic AR-15 page.  I would note that it seems crazy that an uninvolved reporter would find and feature edits made by Nightshifts just 24 hours before the article went live.  Springee (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Level of weapons detail
In the "Deadliest shootings" section, I think the "Type(s) of firearms used" column is too vague and perhaps too narrow. We should include as much verifiable detail as possible for these items, and include noteworthy weapons or accessories that aren't necessarily legally categorized as firearms. List out everything; if it's a list of 15 guns, then include them all. Obviously the Vegas shooter's use of a bump stock received tremendous coverage, so it should be included. Makes and models should be included too when available. Also, citations should be inline rather than in a separate column to help with source-text integrity. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest including sufficient detail to help the reader differentiate the shooting from others, while avoiding extraneous or irrelevant detail (WP:Relevance).
 * Seems to me that relevance comes down to those details from which readers can draw meaningful inferences, in the context of the article. :Consider, as an example, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting. The main article provides information on, among other things, the make and type (e.g. AR-15, AR-10, AK-47) of 21 semi-automatic rifles found in the shooter's hotel room. The article doesn't say which of these rifles the shooter actually used, but even if reliable sources could be found for that information, I struggle to find a reason why their make or type would be relevant. As a practical matter, the shooter could have used Mini-14s, HK93s, or any number of other semi-automatic rifles unrelated to ARs or AKs, and the outcome would have been the same or worse.
 * (Just to pound on the issue a bit more: if the brand and type of the firearm is relevant in a mass shooting, shouldn't the brand and type of the ammunition be just as relevant? Yet, I can find no obvious examples of WP articles on mass shootings which include any ammunition details beyond caliber.)
 * I'd argue, for the purposes of this article, that the firearm characteristics that matter most are those that differentiate the shooting from others in the category. Going back to the example of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting (and having validated that the shooter did fire both .223 and .308 rounds), I'd list the types of firearms used as: Multiple semi-automatic rifles, variously equipped with bump-fire stocks and telescopic sights," with a wikilink back to 2017_Las_Vegas_shooting (and replacements for the lousy cites currently used.) Cinteotl (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Charts like that one shouldn't be an exhaustive list. They should be a snapshot. Every one of those incidents has an article that is linked in the chart and gives the in-depth list if a reader wants it. Whether it was an AR10 instead of an AR15 means very little to most readers. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I support 's proposal. It seems like a reasonable middle ground that would be much more useful to readers than the status quo (my main concern) while not putting undue emphasis on one aspect of these shootings (Niteshift's main concern). Btw if the type of ammo was a differentiating factor and received substantial RS coverage then I think that should be included (like the Vegas bump stock). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We know that bump stocks (the current boogeyman) were present. Are any sources telling us for certain that any of the lethal rounds fired came from a rifle equipped with one? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I forgot - the Vegas shooter had AP and tracer rounds. I don't know if he used them. Cinteotl (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering that being a tracer has no practical effect on lethality, I'm not sure why it would belong on a list like this table? Same with AP. AP rounds tend to not expand and are more likely to go through and through cleanly. Again, snapshot, not an extensive list. See the article for info like that. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Only 8 rounds of .308 were fired. Unless each of these rounds killed an average of 7 people, it's likely that some of the over 1000 .223 rounds fired were fatal. And given that the only .223 rifles found in the shooter's room were bumpstock equipped ARs, I'd say yea, some of the lethal rounds fired came from a bumpstock equipped rifle. Of course that's synthesis... But I'm sure I could find a source for you if you don't want to look for yourself. Cinteotl (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't disputed that 5.56 was the majority round. The question was how much came from a bump stock equipped AR. IIRC, there were mutiple AR's and not all were so equipped. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, keep it fairly simple.
 * As far as calibers and lethality, there is some information about two mass shootings:
 * What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns
 * Las Vegas Autopsies Reveal The True Brutality Of Mass Shootings
 * Mangled tissue and softball-sized exit wounds: Why AR-15 injuries are so devastating
 * I'm sure there is plenty more. Those calibers are not suitable for hunting. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what hunting has to do with this discussion, but the .223/5.56 is actually a fairly popular hunting round., , and, you gotta love when Time magazine also supports this . The HuffPo source doesn't address the question here. Nor does the Miami Herald article. Nor does the Atlantic article. I find it interesting that these articles shout about the amazing lethality of these rounds, while making an apples to oranges comparison to 9mm's, at the same time that the US military is disappointed with the lethality and is exploring the more widespread use of the 7.62 round., . Niteshift36 (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support 's proposal; we should not get down into the weeds, but higher level information is useful to the reader, vs "handgun", etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the proposal you are supporting? Exactly? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * My specific input would be to include information that’s been noted by sources for each particular case. In general, it’s worth including the types of weapons used. What seems to characterize these mass shootings are the following (1) semi-auto weapons (handguns or rifles, such as AR-15 style rifles); (2) high-capacity magazines; (3) high-velocity rounds; (3) multiple firearms; (4) use of flash grenades, bump stocks, tear gas, etc. Whatever contributes to high lethality of these incidents should be noted.


 * For example, if the Parkland shooter did not have an AR-15 semi-auto rifle, it’s unlikely that he would have been able to expend so much ammunition and kill 17 people in under 7 minutes; that’s 3 people per minute (!). Another thing I noticed is that the ratio of killed to wounded is backwards in these shootings. In Parkland, for example, there were 17 killed and 14 transported to the hospital. (In WW2 articles that I edit, you typically see “~4,500 KIA and MIA ~7,000 wounded” etc.)


 * So something is making these shootings particularly lethal, and naturally, it’s the type and the number of weapons used. These details should be noted in the table. I would generally avoid mentioning brand names, unless they are particularly well associated with a specific shooting, such as Bushmaster AR-15 and Sandy Hook. I would then include them in parenthesis. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What? You just said "if the Parkland shooter did not have an AR-15 semi-auto rifle, it’s unlikely that he would have been able to expend so much ammunition and kill 17 people in under 7 minutes". Are you serious? Have you never heard of an AK47? Or read about the San Ysidro McDonald's massacre where no AR15 was present and about the same number of people were killed in the first 5 minutes. Or the Luby's shooting that involved only handguns and left 23 dead in about 10 minutes. I'm starting to feel like you just make statements and hope nobody notices. Are you aware that the US Army is looking to replace the 5.56 with a more effective round? ? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How are you defining a "high velocity round"? As opposed to what, for example?
 * You wrote, "...something is making these shootings particularly lethal, and naturally, it’s the type and the number of weapons used." Do you have anything other than your opinion to support your "natural" conclusion? What about mass murders using different weapons, like knives in Japan and China? While I appreciate the WP:NPOV doesn't really apply in the talk section, your reasoning for altering the article and including certain information appears to be at odds with maintaining a NPOV. TXGRunner (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner
 * While I appreciate that NPOV does not apply to project Talk pages, a comment such as ...We just need to wait until the mass hysteria subsides and the irrational fear of inanimate black metal objects fades before we can attempt to develop a consensus based on rational discussion ( emphasis mine) does not suggest that a neutral POV is the aim. I’ve posted additional questions to your Talk page, so that not clutter the article Talk page with personal discussions. I would appreciate a response there. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you didn't want to "clutter the article Talk page with personal discussions" why did you raise this here and then ask me to respond in person. Why not just ask in person? The answer to your question of who "we" represents in that sentence is Wikipedia.
 * As events occur, individuals become impassioned and motivated and there appears to be a noticeable sway in all forums, not just Wikipedia. If our goal is an Encyclopedia with consistent and steady content, then waiting for the surge of emotion to subside is prudent. My comment was in response to somebody else's comment and I prefaced it with "Then again, maybe Thewolfchild's view is more realistic:" and then summarized his comment.
 * Further, the quotation is not germane here. First, I said I recognized NPOV didn't apply to the Talk session. Second, I wrote if the justification for a change is due to a particular POV, then that is at odds with the NPOV policy. Third, the quote only suggests that waiting until the passion and hysteria subsides to reach a consensus is more productive and likely to yield more lasting results. I was advocating reaching a lasting consensus, not pushing to edit an article to the benefit of a certain POV. Ensuring the articles represent a NPOV is definitely the aim.
 * Now that I've aswered your comment/question/??, would you kindly answer the questions I asked you? Namely, other than your personal opinion, what do you have to support your "natural" conclusion? How do you reconcile your conclusion with mass killings using other weapons? How do you define "high velocity" round?
 * I'll add a few questions given your expertise in World War II history. What about the use of the Thompson sub-machine Gun, the M3 sub-machine gun, the British Sten, and the German MP-40 during World War II? Are they not as lethal? Are they not as effective in close quarters? What percentage of World War II battlefield injuries resulted from shrapnel from artillery, grenades, and mortars vs. gun shots? Could the likelihood of lethality be affected by soldiers having first aid training and being issued first aid kits compared to students who probably had neither? Does the presence of a battlefield combat medic assigned to front-line units affect the ratio dead to wounded compared to a school nurse in a different building or students blocked from receiving aid due to a lockdown?
 * I don't know the answers to those questions, but I think we should probably investigate before making edits based on conclusions we haven't supported.TXGRunner (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)TXGRunner

Casualty info
I actually found the addition of “Casualties” column, as in this version, useful. The headers are sortable so I believe there’s additional utility in being able to sort the table by the casualty number. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the table could use some fine tuning, but nothing worthy of interminable discussion. I agree that the casualties column has value for sorting purposes. Cinteotl (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't find it useful. Cinteotl, you must hate simple math. First, we can't use elementary math skills to determine that 13 is bigger than 12. Now you want the math to be done for you because adding 2 columns is apparently difficult? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi K.e.coffman, I don't find that column to be useful and it muddles up the chart. There is also the problem that many folks don't know what "casualty" actually refers to. The Deaths and Injuries columns can both be sorted and convey the necessary info. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I see your point about ppl not knowing what a "casualty" may be. This could create confusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)