Talk:AR-15–style rifle/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Embarrassing

Is it too much to strive for both accuracy and good grammar?

I know you recently spent a bunch of time on the "Use in crime and mass shootings" section. But I think you can do better.

Here's the text, as of this moment:

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.,[52][53][54] but they have still 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] 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,[63] the 2017 Las Vegas shooting,[63] and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.[64]

• Killings are not necessarily gun crimes, nor are they even necessarily crimes. And, while you may have made a killing, it's not likely you've committed a killing. Further, were killings to be committed, more would be committed with the use of forks (to eat diets leading to heart disease) than with the use of handguns.
• It doesn't follow that the very low overall percentage of AR-15s used in gun crimes is a result of most killings and other gun crimes being committed with the use of handguns. Given the number of handguns versus AR-15 style rifles in the US, it would be remarkable if the latter were used in more than a very low overall percentage of gun crimes.
• I think the statistic you're trying to get to here is the one that says AR-15 style rifles are used in relatively few mass shootings. And...

Oh, to hell with it. Why try and fix something that is just going to be screwed up again in a couple of weeks? Cinteotl (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with point 1. Point 2 is valid and can be addressed. Based on material I've read, but don't have at hand, the percentage of firearms homicides committed with handguns vs long guns (AR-15s being a subset of long guns) showed that handguns are disproportionately used in crimes. I also saw a stat from a few years back that compared, I think, semi-auto rifles to handguns in mass shootings. It showed that something like 27% of mass shooting used semi-auto rifles (again I don't recall if it was semi-auto rifles vs assault weapons vs etc). So we could add some clarity there but only by inference. I think it would be be good to add that info but it wouldn't be "AR-15" stats. Are we comfortable adding that sort of material? Point 3 basically is addressed above. Springee (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

No detailed stats are published on the prevalence of AR-15 style rifles in crime. They're generally lumped in with shotguns and other long guns. Here are some possibly useful cites:

"Although most crime is not committed with guns, most gun crime is committed with handguns."[1]

"A handgun was used in about 83% of all firearm homicides in 1994, compared to 73% in 2011. Other types of firearms, such as shotguns and rifles, accounted for the remainder of firearm homicides. For nonfatal firearm violence, about 9 in 10 were committed with a handgun, and this remained stable from 1994 to 2011." [2]

"Handguns far outnumber both knives and rifles in American murders." [3]

Weapon types used in mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2017 [4]

Here's a possibly useful dif from a different article:

"While semi-automatic pistols are by far the most prevalent weapons in US mass shootings, AR-15 style rifles have been used in a number of the deadliest incidents, and have come to be widely characterized in the mainstream media as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes." [5] (Notice the good grammar?) Cinteotl (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

This is well-written and factual, but I would remove the "mainstream media" qualification.

Several reliable sources focus on the AR-15 style rifle's role in recent shootings:

"Four out of the five deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history have taken place since 2012 and all four of those shooters used AR-15 model rifles in their attacks." [6]

"But in all of the latest incidents — Newtown, Conn., in 2012; San Bernardino, Calif., in 2015; Orlando, Fla., in 2016; Las Vegas, 2017; Sutherland Springs, Texas, 2017 — the attackers primarily used AR-15 semiautomatic rifles." [7]

According to WP:SYN we must be careful not to imply or lead readers toward a conclusion that is not stated by reliable sources. For example, we shouldn't compare two statistics unless the sources also make that same comparison. –dlthewave ☎ 18:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this statement Four out of the five deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history have taken place since 2012 and all four of those shooters used AR-15 model rifles in their attacks. - this is a fact strictly speaking, but it is not a neutral statement of a fact. The third deadliest mass shooting in the US was Virginia Tech and it took place in 2007. (This is discussed by academic sources I have cited elsewhere, I can pull them up again if editors are interested.) - this is important since the discussion about the AR in the media has focused heavily on the claim that one can kill more people with an AR than with a handgun (which is a disputed claim based on the full set of facts) - I recently read an article where Zeynep Tufekci was quoted making certain recommendations for the media which included not focusing on the perpetrator, but also not focusing on the weapons. Many articles have been published recently by the media critical of the media's own coverage and the role it plays in these types of attacks. I think the issue of the AR-15 and mass shootings definitely needs to be discussed in this article, but how is still an open question that we will probably be discussing for a while - there are too many sources available to argue for its categorical exclusion, but I think it would be more productive to focus on the academic literature and the full breadth of media sources, including those that have been critical of the media.Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Dlthewave: The "mainstream media" reference is supported by the citations (which are all mainstream media), and differentiates the claim as being not made by actual subject matter experts (Who are generally careful to distinguish between trademarked AR-15 rifles and AR pattern rifles, and who might point out that, for truly discerning mass shooters, the weapon of choice is the M134.) Cinteotl (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say are "have come to be widely characterized" without referencing "the mainstream media", because the characterization extends beyond the media. Many of these sources are reporting on the on the connection between generic AR-15s and mass shootings—interviewing experts, going through data, whatever—they aren't just making it up themselves. Perhaps subject matter experts disagree, but that sentence doesn't say anything about what firearms experts believe, it simply talks about what people believe in general. Also, I don't think any firearms expert would claim that a minigun is an effective weapon for a single shooter moving around on foot, unless they were just fucking around. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm indifferent on the "main stream media" part. If someone is comfortable with wp:Citation merging, that long block of citations needs it. As for overall handguns vs AR-15 homicide data, I haven't ever seen that information. We do have the FBI gun crime data [[8]] which is widely reported. The 2016 data shows 7105 murders by handgun vs 374 for rifles of all types (and 3,077 of type unstated). I think this is relevant as AR-15's are clearly a subset of rifles but what subset isn't clear. I've seen several articles that report this data though not always the 2016 data (the latest set). This BBC article shows the data as a chart and cites the FBI data but doesn't offer the raw numbers[[9]]. This HuffPo article has a clear spin on the data and isn't using the 2016 data but it does cite previous years data [[10]]. NYT with similar data from around 2012 [[11]]

This article offers stats on rifles vs pistols in mass shootings from 1999-2013 (27% used rifles) [[12]]. The article does talk about AR-15s but the stats are specific to the AR-15 so this brings up a question regarding on or off topic. Personally I would be comfortable citing the FBI data but I'm posting these other articles to avoid claims of OR or SYN. I also would generally agree with people who feel that most of this (and the links I've offered) should be in the various crime articles (linked from this article) vs specifically in this article. My quick searching didn't find an article that compared the % of long guns vs % of homicides by long guns in the US (nor one that was AR-15 specifically). Springee (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

As editors, it's not our job to track down and interpret the primary source statistics. We should be citing secondary sources that have analyzed the numbers. There's also no need to distinguish between "media sources" and "subject matter experts". A firearms expert is not necessarily an expert in the field of data analysis. –dlthewave ☎ 03:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes, this article has become somewhat of an embarrassment, but I think it can be turned around. If some of us... just for a moment at least, could stop focusing on "criminal usage", and perhaps look at adding a well rounded section about the various, intended, legitimate uses of civilian AR-15 style rifles, (like I suggested weeks ago), I think that would go a long way towards improving this article. Any one reading this article right now would know some developmental history, comparison to it's military cousin, and as for usage, all they'd know about is the illegitimate use in mass-shootings. So, any thoughts? Nevermind. See thread below. Thanks - theWOLFchild 02:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Any thoughts? Yes, that you just received a very wise warning from NeilN and are already stepping out onto thin ice by returning to the very subject which got you into trouble in the first place. Stop trying to limit inclusion of the same properly sourced content you opposed, and got in trouble for so doing. The use of "AR-15 style rifles" for "mass shootings" is an extremely notable subject that must be covered in both articles. This is exactly THE hot topic from which you should recuse yourself. Otherwise a topic ban will be needed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC) @BullRangifer:, I simply ask if we can revisit the issue of adding content regarding intended, legitimate use, something you have up until now completely ignored and the article is entirely lacking, and your response to is mischaracterize my comment as something completely different, threaten me, and ping an admin in the process? Seriously? And after the way your own behaviour was questioned by admins at that AE report, you want to still carry on like this? That doesn't seem very collegial, or well thought-out. Re-read my comment, in no way did I "oppose", even "try to limit" content on "mass-shooting". This is, after all, an encyclopaedia, and the very content I am suggesting is very much in line with Wikipedia's purpose. We should be including content on the intended, legitimate uses of these rifles. 500 different companies didn't manufacturer, market and sell 12 million of them to the civilian populace, just so that eight could be used in mass shootings, The other 11,999,992 rifles out there are used for activities like target shooting, competitions, prepping/collecting/self-defense, hunting, etc. We should be documenting that. Why are you so opposed to this? (and can we please stay on topic?) - theWOLFchild 15:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC) I have no idea where you get the idea that I'm opposed to it. I'm not. Go for it. Just stop trying to control the addition and development of a subject you don't want included here. That's what got you into trouble, so don't return to that behavior. Move on and develop your proposed content. No one is objecting to that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC) I agree that this article could be improved by adding or expanding material about the function of this weapon, any variations, and civilian or police usage, but that's not what this thread is about. It's about the section on crime and mass shootings. Your comment is irrelevant to the discussion, all you're saying is "what you're talking about is pointless, you should be talking about what I want to talk about instead." Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC) @Red Rock Canyon: Not at all, I was responding to the OP's comments, specifically their last, unfinished point; "I think the statistic you're trying to get to here is the one that says AR-15 style rifles are used in relatively few mass shootings. And.... I agree, AR-15's have been used in notable mass-shootings and I'm not opposing that content be added in regard to that. I'm just saying that, like the OP, that content could be improved, and furthermore, the article as a whole could be improved if we add information to balance it against the mass-shooting content. At no point did I say; what you're talking about is pointless, you should be talking about what I want to talk about instead. On the one hand, you say you agree with my comment, but then call it "irrelevant". That's somewhat confusing, but if you'd prefer I start a different thread for my suggestion, then I'll do that. - theWOLFchild 15:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Red Rock Canyon, that's a very good summary of what's happened. According to the official warning, TWC has possibly violated 3 of the 4 parts: * not to impede the formation of consensus by being too bold with talk page actions (specifically, they should not take it upon themselves to maintain or "clerk" any discussions); * not to impede the formation of consensus by repeatedly making the same points; * to acknowledge consensus can change and having external events bring increased scrutiny and change to potential walled gardens of articles can be beneficial and should not be ridiculed. Those three elements are relevant here, and TWC needs to stay far away from any behaviors which might be interpreted as violations of those warnings (and their comment did touch on all three). That's what's at stake here. While they were "on trial", the two relevant articles were improved, and they need to accept that fact and move on. The old policy-violating attitude that such content should only be in some "other" article must be dropped. We aren't allowed to create, or use, articles as WP:POVFORKs. Relevant content belongs in the relevant articles, and not be banished to "somewhere else, just as long as it's not here". That's the essence of the attitude we want to eliminate, and why we don't allow POV forks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Um, what? "POV forks"...? What on earth you talking about? I don't know how to make this any clearer; I am asking other editors their thoughts on adding content regarding the legitimate, intended uses of these rifles. That's all, nothing else. I even struck my comment above and started a new thread, so there wouldn't (hopefully) be any confusion. So, again, can we please stay on topic? Thanks - theWOLFchild 16:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC) The content you suggest belongs here. No one has suggested otherwise. About POV forks,... You have battled against inclusion of any content that mentions the connection between AR-15s and mass shootings, and have said it belongs elsewhere, not here. That is one of the attitudes involved in forbidden POV forking. That content belongs in the relevant articles, and not "somewhere else, as long as it isn't here". You don't get to banish such content. That's ownership behavior, violates NPOV, and treats that "other" preferred location as a POV fork for the content you don't want here. That content actually does belong here, so stop criticizing it or complaining about our discussing it. Don't distract from this subject because you think another subject deserves attention. The content you want sounds very good. Go for it and I'm sure many editors will help you. There is no reason why both subjects cannot be accommodated here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC) Wrong. What I pushed for, was balance in this, and related articles. Something that is still sorely lacking. I'm on record as voting for the inclusion of the mass-shooting content, just not to the point it violates NPOV. It would be nice if you would stop claiming otherwise, as well as attacking me every time I post here, simply because of an AE warning. I don't recall you being appointed to any kind of position to "warn" me about anything, nor tell me what I can and can't post here. I think you've even realized you've gone too far and posting a friendly "go for it" after every. single. post. of. mine will not change that. One of the AE warnings was "to focus on content, not contributors". You'd be wise to start following that yourself. So stop with the "fork" nonsense and other things I did not say, and, again... for the (third? fourth?) time, please, stay on topic. The topic I'm suggesting, in the thread below, is the addition of content regarding the legitimate, intended use of these rifles. That's it, that's all. If you wish to contribute, great. If not, please stop this persistent disruption. Thank you - theWOLFchild 17:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Balance"? One short paragraph does not create a balance problem or violate NPOV. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC) And like I asked at the very beginning of all this (go check if you don't believe me), will it stay at "one short paragraph"...? There will be more shootings, some will involve ARs, do we keep adding every shooting? What happens when it becomes one long paragraph? Then two? Then three? You see, I thought this was the purpose of the RfC, to determine what the community thought was appropriate in this regard. But long before the RfC was even close to finished, a small group here just went ahead and added that content anyway. Now, I'm not disputing that content. I'm just looking to add content to help balance it. - theWOLFchild 19:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not interested in edit warring collapse tags here but I think the collapsed discussion started at least somewhat on topic. It started as at least semi-legitimate criticism, especially given the section title. I think the part I agree with the most is that we probably should expand the non-crime material and leave much of the crime debate and details to linked articles. POV fork was noted. I don't think that applies here since those other topics (gun crime, mass shootings etc) already exist and weren't created as POV forks from this article. In defense of those who haven't fixed it, well I haven't either. ;) Springee (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Springee, this kind of manipulation of other editors comments is just the type of "clerking" that was recently warned about, and to do so repeatedly, is indeed edit-warring and disruptive. But just the same, it's probably best we ignore the route this thread has taken, (that's what I'm gonna do). As it is, I struck my initial comment and started a new thread just below, about the addition of legitimate use information, so if you're interested in assisting with this content, please contribute to that thread. Any help would definitely be appreciated. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 03:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Legitimate use content

I think we should consider adding content regarding the intended, legitimate uses for these rifles (target shooting, competitions, prepping/collecting/self-defense, hunting, etc). Any thoughts? Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 15:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Gee thanks. Anyway, here is an article from the New York Times; "‘It’s One of the Greatest Rifles’: Fans of the AR-15 Explain the Gun’s Appeal" (By Jack Healy, 20 FEB 2018), it discusses a 34 year old musician who like to take his AR-15 target shooting, a 13 year old girl who built her first AR-15 at age 9 and takes part in competitions, along with her father, and a 55 year old "extremely liberal" AR-15 owner who used his rifle for 30 years to both hunt and target-shoot. This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. - ^theWOLFchild 17:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No need for the sarcasm. AGF. I really meant it. Go ahead and develop this as content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

And there's no need for your continued condescension. Of course, you could AGF yourself and assume I really was thanking you for your permission to proceed, but really, if you're going to post anything, I'd rather it remain on topic (for the fifth time). - ^theWOLFchild 19:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The best way to move forward would be to propose a specific change, or just go ahead and boldly add it to the article yourself. I don't think anyone is really opposed to this. My only concern is that the sources presented in the previous discussion consist mainly of quotes by AR-15 users, with little to no analysis. –dlthewave ☎ 02:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I don't think a bold addition is the way to go. I would almost assuredly be reverted, start some kind dispute, maybe even a complaint to AE or ANI, so basically a waste of time. I would prefer if we could first agree on the addition of a legitimate use section, what kind of uses should or should not be included, and what sourcing would be acceptable to support this content, as that has already been an issue with that. As for sourcing, there is a sense of hypocrisy here, and I'm not directing that at anyone specific, nor am I using that as an insult, but as a perceived contradiction. When sources such as TIME, NY Times, CNBC, etc, report on the illegal use of these rifles to kill people, there is seemingly no issue with using those sources to support that information in creating content. Yet, when those very same sources report on the legitimate use of these rifles, all of sudden they're not acceptable? They even support the facts in their reporting by directly going to the legal owners who use ARs for their intended purposes; target shooting, hunting, competitions, etc., etc. Why is that not acceptable? What kind of neutral, detached, expert analysis is required here? And is that same neutral, detached, expert analysis used to support each and every instance of sourcing with the criminal use content? I don't ask that because I'm challenging the criminal use content, I'm simply looking for examples of what some people here are seeking as acceptable sourcing. - ^theWOLFchild 03:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Springee:, well, someone has hidden our comments above and I don't know if you read mine yet, so I'll again say that if you're interested in helping with the addition of some legitimate use content, it would be appreciated. This would be the place, it's the reason I created this thread, as the one above is somewhat of a mess now. It appears that the idea of such an addition is acceptable. We should determine how many different uses should be included and how much detail. Sourcing seems like it might be an issue, so any input on that would also be appreciated. This goes for anyone else who cares to help out. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 04:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Section order

User:Pharos The hatnote should be above any maintenance tags, which I fixed here [13] per WP:ORDER. You undid this here [14]. Please can you check that your edit is incorrect and redo it as I'm not fixing it again only to get undone by someone maintaining the article, regards Widefox; talk 11:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, fixed.--Pharos (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding a fact and a reference to the Use in crime... section

Once the edit freeze is lifted I plan to add the fact that AR-15 style rifles were the primary weapon used in all the most recent of the deadliest mass shootings in American history, along with appropriate reliable source(s), to the Crime... section in the body of the article.

This is already stated implicitly in that section because the shootings are listed there, but this will make explicit precisely how prevalent the use of AR-15s in these crimes is. That in turn may help clarify for readers why so many sources refer to it as the "weapon of choice for mass shootings" or similar wordings. Waleswatcher (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This section really needs to be cleaned up. It's no doubt that this needs to be included, I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the content per se, except that it honestly just reads a bit awkwardly. It would be nice to include some sort of text that gives actual statistics. For example, "have been used in X out of Y mass shootings that involve more than N deaths in the United States including..." At very least, I would suggest breaking that down into two sentences, for example: "AR-15 variants have been used in several high-profile mass shootings in the United States. Among these are..." (emphasis showing suggested changes). I would do the edit myself but quite frankly I am terrified to edit this article given the politically charged nature of it. --nezZario (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Not going to go down to two sentences, as it will be demanded we include at least a sentence on the following.

Use in recent mass shootings (and maybe , per your suggestion, a sentence on the fact they have high casualty rates).

Not used in the majority of crimes (and maybe , per your suggestion, a sentence on the statistics of actual victim numbers).

A sentence about notable examples of said mass shootings.

A sentance about the port Arthur shooting.

And this does removes some material.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm generally OK with this material. I think Slatersteven's suggestion looks good. I do think we need to keep the lead limited but the body could be expanded. I would suggest it's better to stick with more encylopedic presentations of material. Often we get people trying to put the soundbite type quotes into the article without context. That I think we should avoid. Also we should be careful about how we note high casualty rates since we have other examples such as the VT shooting that had high casualties but used pistols. I would actually like to expand some of the discussion of the controversy (side A says, side B says) but perhaps that's general "assault weapons" vs AR-15 material. Springee (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Springee that discussing the controversy at somewhat greater length is a good idea. This section is arguably the most important in the entire article apart from the lead, so there is no reason to skimp on length. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

An underlying issue here is the relationship or contrast between prevalence and effectiveness. Could elimination of the weapon(s) have prevented the event, or would use of different weapons change the casualty count? (potentially removing the event from media attention as a record holder) Unless sources identify features of the specific AR-15 style firearm(s) significant to the event or events in comparison to other firearms, I suggest neutrality requires focusing the comparisons on mass murders rather than mass shootings. It might be different if the focus was on comparison to other types of firearms; but if the casualty count is more significant then the firearm features contributing to that count, it would seem appropriate to discuss these rifles in comparison to other mass murder weapons including bombs, vehicles, poisons, or arson. Considering the casualty counts of bombings and vehicle ramming attacks in addition to the mass shootings would help illustrate the significance of availability of the weapons selected in terms of background checks, waiting periods, site security precautions, and recognition of danger. Thewellman (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No, we don't omit information from articles just because things could have turned out differently in some alternate reality scenario. Neutrality requires us to follow the lead of reliable sources, and those sources include significant coverage of the prevalence of AR-15 style rifles in mass shootings specifically. They also cover the features (magazine size, semi-automatic, long range, availability, etc) that account for this prevalence. It doesn't matter that someone could have committed the same crime with a different weapon, the fact is that they chose an AR-15 style rifle in many of these recent mass shootings. If you can find prevalent RS coverage that compares these various methods of killing then we can consider making that comparison in this article, but otherwise it would be WP:SYN. –dlthewave ☎ 03:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree it would be inappropriate to omit information -- in this case information about mass murders. Listing only mass shootings may give the impression they are the most significant mass murders. Quick recollection of recent events in the United States indicates the September 11 attacks aircraft ramming attacks killed 2996, the Oklahoma City bombing killed 168, possible arson at the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire killed 165, the Happy Land fire arson killed 87, and the Waco seige arson killed 76. Each of those events caused more fatalities than the 2017 Las Vegas shooting (58) or the Orlando nightclub shooting (49). Pacific Air Lines Flight 773 and Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771 murders killed 44 and 43, and the UpStairs Lounge arson attack killed 32. Those events exceeded the casualty counts of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (28) or the Sutherland Springs church shooting (26). It isn't speculation to include these events. It merely puts the mass murder effectiveness of generic AR-15 style rifles into perspective by comparison with other weapons. Thewellman (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I could not agree more with the above comments that it puts it all in perspective. I also have a source state that in the U.S. rifles are only used in 3% of murders. -72bikers (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind that we had a well-attended RfC about including criminal use in this article. Wider community consensus was that "a section on AR-15 style rifle about its prevalence in mass shootings should be included in the article." –dlthewave ☎ 21:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

My response to that RfC, specifying the importance of describing features significant to the weapon of choice, was counted as supporting the consensus. Thewellman (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

And we have just such a section in the article. It has been in the article since at least the close of the RfC. Springee (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

As I understand the issue it is not the number of crimes they are used it, but the increased deadliness of them. RS are making the claim they make crimes deadlier, do RS dispute this claim? So over the last 10 years (the period when AR-15's have been used as a mass murder weapon) how many people have been murdered with them as opposed to any other weapon single type of weapon?Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, reliable sources focus on the deadliness of the shootings, not the number of shootings that the guns are used in. AR-15 style rifles were the primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in American history (from the lede) sums it up. Some sources compare this to the prevalence of handguns in shootings, which we've included in the body. Shootings are generally treated as their own category of murder which is why there is no comparison to vehicle rammings, airplane hijackings, etc. –dlthewave ☎ 12:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I recognize the interest of other editors in explaining the relationship of this type of firearm to mass murder; but merely identifying them as AR-15 style may encourage erroneous conclusions because of the widely varying features of rifles fitting that description. While sources who do not know the difference between an Airbus, a Boeing, and a Tupolev might reliably report that the deadliest airline accidents involve multi-engine, swept-wing, jet airliners with large seating capacity, eliminating planes with two or more of those features would be unlikely to improve air safety. Thewellman (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, how do propose we address this? –dlthewave ☎ 19:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

While all shooters will obviously use a firearm, it may be less obvious that most shooters will use the most widely available firearms and ammunition. I suggest initially comparing the prevalence of AR-15 style rifles in mass shootings to their fraction of recent firearms sales. Finding a disproportionately higher representation in mass shootings might justify comparison with shooting events producing fewer casualties. I suggest the most likely advantage to mass murderers would be the capacity for sustained rapid fire. How many bullets were fired by each firearm during the event? The number of bullets fired per unit of time in a mass murder event is an indicator of rifle capability possibly based on one or more of these features:

• Semi-automatic fire - Not all AR-15 style rifles are designed for semi-automatic fire, and the casualty count of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting may have been increased by modifications to increase the rate of fire above that of most AR-15 style rifles. Any modifications from semi-automatic fire should be specified.
• Magazine capacity - AR-15 style rifles come equipped with various size magazines. What was the capacity of the magazine(s) used in the event?
• Interchangeable magazines - Some AR-15 style rifles have limited ability to change magazines. How many loaded magazines did the shooter(s) carry, and how many were changed during the event?

The number of casualties (either dead or wounded) per bullet fired is more likely proportional to skill of the shooter (and vulnerability of the victims,) although cartridge characteristics may be significant. AR-15 style rifles use various cartridges; and rifle cartridges are typically more powerful than handgun cartridges so single hits in similar locations are capable of inflicting more significant injuries. What cartridges were used during the event, and what type of bullets were used (for example expanding hunting bullets or military full metal jacket loads.) Any cartridges used in mass murder events in significantly higher percentages than that cartridge's share of rifle ammunition sales might be noted.

Handguns are more easily concealed while approaching potential victims; but as potential victims attempt to distance themselves from a shooter, shooters of normal strength and dexterity may find it easier to hit distant targets with rifles than with handguns. AR-15 style rifles come with various length shoulder stocks, barrels, and barrel attachments. Shorter rifles may be more easily concealed while approaching the crime scene, and may be easier to aim in confined locations. What was the overall length of the rifle(s) used by the shooter?

Firearms other than the AR-15 type come in a similar variety of lengths and are capable of semi-automatic fire, firing the same cartridges, and/or using interchangeable magazines (some with high capacity.) Indications that any one of these features was significant might warrant consideration of restricting that feature on other types of firearms; while there might be little benefit from restricting AR-15 style rifles without the significant features.

Although I wouldn't discourage investigation, I suggest these other features (sometimes considered cosmetic) are less widely significant. Silencers may delay victim recognition of danger, although supersonic bullets (including the majority fired from rifles) still produce a sonic boom and the sound of the rifle action and ejected case is louder than usually portrayed in entertainment films. Flash suppressors may aid concealment and protect shooters' night vision from darkened firing locations. Muzzle brakes may reduce recoil, while impairing shooters' hearing. Pistol grips are found on most firearms in one form or another. Thewellman (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

That isn't a summary of the body and it's only in the lead because WW edit warred the comment into the lead. Per BRD that content should go until there is consensus for inclusion. Springee (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Almost correct, the lead can summarize the body, it does not have to copy it exactly. The only reason this is worded that way in the l;dead is because of objections that a more paraphrased text was not specific enough. We in fact say (in the body " AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile" mass shootings in the United States", thus the text in the lead says (more or less) the same thing. Now there may be an argument for a switch (we move this text to the lead and move the lead text to the body). But to say the lead does not reflect the body is a misrepresentation.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Not only that, the body explicitly lists all the shootings referred to by the phrase in the lead - so the lead really is a summary of the body, and a rather concise and clear one at that. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

At a glance, just over half the lead discusses controversy and use in crime, yet use in crime is only one of the eight sections that make up the article (and that doesn't include the yet to be added "legitimate use" section that this article desperately needs). Therefore the lead is waaay out balance in comparison to the article that it is supposed to describe and adjustments are neesed. - ^theWOLFchild 17:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It takes up one line, two if you add the line about the AWB (which many here did not think should be in the lead).Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"One line"...? It's the entire second paragraph, and there's only two paragraphs. - ^theWOLFchild 18:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"Since 2010, AR-15 style rifles have become one of the "most beloved and most vilified rifles" in the United States according to the New York Times, and been promoted as "America's rifle" by the National Rifle Association."

Nope not really about the controversy or its use in crime. Rather its overall public image.

"AR-15 style rifles were the primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in American history."

Yep about the controversy and its use in crime.

"The Federal Assault Weapons Ban restricted the Colt AR-15 and derivatives from 1994-2004, although it did not affect rifles with fewer features."

Not about that controversy or its use in crime, and not included by those who want to include reference to crime. I have in fact susgested we could remove this.

"there are an estimated 10-12 million in circulation in the United States."

Not about use in crime or any controversy.

What we have is one line about it's use in crime and a lot of material that really have nothing to say about that issue, but is on the same paragraph. In fact over half this paragraph is (in effect) saying how popular it is. So I am now going to suggest we separate out the crime and prevention matter from, the material about it's popularity.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

1) "...one of the most vilified rifles" - Yup, that really is about the controversy surrounding this rifle.

2) Glad you agree.

3) There is "no controversy" surrounding the FAWB? The inclusion of the "Colt AR-15 yadda yadda yadda..." in it? It's label as an "assault-"anything? It's affect on sales? It's affect on design and "features"...? Really? Like I said, there are only 2 paragraphs. One to summarize one section about a minor subject (6 out of 12 million used criminially) and the other paragraph to summarize the 8 other sections, all with more significant content, (and still nothing about 'legitimate use' yet...). You think that makes for a balanced lead? - ^theWOLFchild 00:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

And we are not talking about controversy, but the line about mass shootings (again). That is why I say only one line is about that subject, rather then wider issues (and if the paragraph is too long how about removing material about subjects that are not even in the body, like the AWB?). And we do not say 6 out of 12 million used criminally, if that is what we mean, we should say it, what we say is 12 million sold, and nothing else.

But there is your clue as to why this section is so long, if we removed the AWB (nothing to do with its use in mass shootings) that would make it shorter. If we combine the lines about its use in criminal acts, we might be able to lost another line. So do you agree we should remove the reference to the AWB?Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree we should remove the reference to the AWB. It's a crucial piece of information about this class of rifles. It should be added to the body, either to the Criminal Use section or to another. Are there any objections to adding it to the body? Waleswatcher (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

What about those who think that the lead is too long?Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with that either. Wiki style is that the lead should not exceed four paragraphs. This one is only two, and pretty short and simple paragraphs at that. There's no reason to try to shorten it. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

What might help address User:Thewolfchild's concerns is lengthening the lead by including a brief summary of the rest of the article (modularity, comparison to military versions, etc.). Waleswatcher (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD policy states "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article."

The WP:BALASP policy states "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial , but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic . This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news ."

The WP:UNDUE states "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail , quantity of text, prominence of placement ." -72bikers (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)