Talk:Colt AR-15

Popular Culture Section

Considering the examination of this weapon's role in the recent tragedy, and gun control overall, would it be useful to have a section dealing with legal aspects of owning this weapon? Perhaps its use in other shooting incidents, etc? Just wondering. BabyJonas (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose for three main reasons:

A - Recentism - This just happened and I don't see how part of, or even an entire section can be devoted to the weapon's use in a particular incident.

B - I think it falls under WP:UNDUE, as these (semiautomatic rifles/semiautomatic "assault weapons") really are not used in a large proportion of violent crimes overall. There would be a much better rationale for including a section in the MAIN handgun article if anywhere for noting gun violence incidents.

C - I think introduction of the section would result in a non-NPOV point of view being introduced into the article.

In addition, I think it is worth noting that the North Hollywood shootout (in which among other weapons, several AK-47s were used with dramatic effect) is not mentioned on the AK-47 or AKM pages.

My thoughts, take it or leave it.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of a section in this article that discusses the use of the AR-15 in mass shootings in the US. This was the weapon used by a number of the most notorious assailants in recent tragedies, including the Newtown, Connecticut elementary school assault on 14 December 2012. It is largely as a result of these mass shootings that Congress has begun to debate the validity of whether this weapon, and others like it, should have ownership restrictions placed on them. Here is an All Things Considered interview dated 17 December 2012 with Malcolm Brady, retired assistant director of what was then known as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, discussing the use of this weapon in recent mass shootings: http://www.npr.org/2012/12/17/167479065/one-gun-used-in-conn-attack-has-rambo-effect. I think the notorious aspect of this weapon warrants inclusion in this article. --Saukkomies ^talk 13:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose -- No changes to gun laws have occurred due to the recent mass shootings. It is too early to speculate what the outcome, if any, will be. Wikipedia policy is not to speculate, but to only include information that is verifiable. It is too early to know (or verify) what the effect, if any, will be on AR-15 rifles. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There is information available. This rifle has been the #1 choice among mass murderers in the US in recent years, and is the subject of debate currently in Congress. This is already happening, we don't have to wait for it to happen. Mentioning this controversy should be done in the article, since it is relevant and important to the topic. --Saukkomies ^talk 22:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That would violate the guidelines at WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:GUNS, so no we aren't going to do that. This is an encyclopedia, not a Brady Campaign fansite. Enough with the coatracking. ROG5728 (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It violates none of those guidelines. The use of this rifle as the weapon of choice among many mass murderers is a well-documented fact. It is not controversial, since it is a factual piece of data that does not draw any conclusions by including it. It also is not violating the NPOV to state this fact, since there is no point of view it favors one way or the other. To NOT mention it is actually violating the NPOV. --Saukkomies ^talk 00:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

First, it violates WP:OR because you're speculating about the long term notoriety the weapon will have as a result of this. Second, it violates WP:GUNS because it doesn't meet the notability criteria laid out there. Third, it violates WP:NPOV because this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a Brady Campaign "weapons of mass murder" gun control blurb. ROG5728 (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"The massacre of children at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., appears to be profoundly swaying Americans’ views on guns, galvanizing the broadest support for stricter gun laws in about a decade, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll.

As President Obama tries to persuade a reluctant Congress to pass new gun laws, the poll found that a majority of Americans — 54 percent — think gun control laws should be tightened, up markedly from a CBS News poll last April that found that only 39 percent backed stricter laws.

The rise in support for stricter gun laws stretched across political lines, including an 18-point increase among Republicans. A majority of independents now back stricter gun laws.

Whether the Newtown shooting — in which 20 first graders and 6 adults were killed — will have a long-term effect on public opinion of gun laws is hard to assess just a month after the rampage. But unlike the smaller increases in support for gun control immediately after other mass shootings, including after the 2011 shooting in Tucson that severely wounded Representative Gabrielle Giffords, the latest polling results suggest a deeper, and possibly more resonating, shift.

In terms of specific gun proposals being considered, the poll found even wider support, including among gun owners."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/us/poll-shows-school-shooting-sways-views-on-guns.html?_r=0

There is no speculation here. The weapon has been used repeatedly in multiple mass murders. The notoriety is irrelevant: this can be stated simply in the article without any opinion or bias. It could be something like this:

The AR-15 has been used in multiple occurrences in mass shootings in the US, including the 11 December 2012 shooting in the Clakamas Shopping Mall in Portland, Oregon; the 20 July 2012 shooting in the Century 16 movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado; and the 14 December 2012 shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

There is nothing in that text that is biased or pushing any agenda. It is simply reporting facts. IF these facts are deliberately kept out of the article, then that action of not reporting them is a violation of the NPOV. Why are you trying to impose censorship on what should be a simple statement of an important aspect of this weapon? You are free to discuss its colors and various options, but you cannot discuss how it is used by criminals? I believe that is a very biased philosophy that does not adhere to the spirit of Wikipedia. --Saukkomies ^talk 04:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're speculating about the long term notoriety the weapon will have as a result of this, which is original research. Unless you can establish that notoriety with an actual source that clearly states it (which at this point you obviously can't), then it's also a violation of the guidelines at WP:GUNS. It's far too early to say whether this incident will have a real long term impact on the notoriety of the weapon; it most likely will not. The mere inclusion of something like this in the article (fact or not) is most certainly still a violation of WP:NPOV because it serves to advance an agenda and nothing more. Just because content is "factual" doesn't mean its inclusion in any given article would be neutral. We aren't going to clutter gun articles with "mass murder" blurbs. The WP:GUNS guidelines were created with this kind of nonsense in mind. ROG5728 (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Establish notoriety? Cerberus, under pressure from its stockholders after the Connecticut shooting, is ridding itself of Freedom Group! http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-30/benevolent-billionaires-should-buy-out-bushmaster.html

This is not the first nor the second nor the third time in just recent years that this rifle has been used in a mass shooting. There are numerous instances of it being used in this way, stretching back for years. Hardly is this a short-term phenomenon! And yes, most definitely there has been a long-term record of its being used by mass shooters. I will go now and collect an extensive list of all the occasions that the AR-15 has been used in mass shootings, but I want to make note now that the reasons being given for its non-inclusion in the article about this subject are unfounded. --Saukkomies ^talk 06:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue isn't factuality, it's relevance (and neutrality). It's far too early to say whether this incident will have a real long term impact on the weapon. ROG5728 (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Which incident are you refering to? The incident last Friday was only the latest in a long series of incidents in which this weapon has been used in a mass shooting. The first dates back several years. The attempt at preventing the mention of this rifle as being the weapon-of-choice of mass murderers is nothing more than a biased perspective - it is a violation of the NPOV. --Saukkomies ^talk 19:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any verifiable references claiming that AR-15 rifles have been, or even are, a weapon of choice for mass murderers. Timothy McVeigh certainly didn't use one. Neither did Charles Manson. Neither was it the weapon of choice for Jim Jones. Neither was it used in Austin, TX, from the clock tower, as I recall. Nor in Bath, MI. Between dynamite, fertilizer bombs, kool-aid, and a host of other weapons that have been used by mass murderers, and in just the sheer numbers of body counts, the use of AR-15 variants is actually quite rare. I agree with ROG5728 in that it is entirely too early to speculate on anything regarding AR-15 rifles, which, I should point out, wasn't even what was used at Newtown. The rifle used there was a Bushmaster XM-15, which is noticeably different than a Colt AR-15. The XM-15 Bushmaster rifle also wasn't even an assault weapon by CT law. By the sheer numbers of dead, I would think that the weapon of choice for mass murderers is actually explosives, and not firearms at all. I certainly don't understand any attempt to pin the weapon-of-choice of mass murderers title to the Colt AR-15 rifle, especially in the absence of verifiable references. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

First: I suppose when you say that you haven't seen a "verifiable source", you are not refering to the NPR interview that I referenced above in this very thread, in which former director of the ATF said specifically that the AR-15 has become the weapon of choice for mass murderers. It would help in this discussion if you could follow along.

Second: The reasons that Timothy McVeigh didn't use the AR-15 are because 1) he didn't use a rifle, he used a bomb, and 2) the AR-15 was not a legal firearm for non-military people to own until 2004. The reason Jim Jones didn't use it was because he used Kool-Aid. He did, however, have his thugs armed with M-16s when they attacked Congressman Ryan's party at the runway, but that was not in the US - it shouldn't count. The reason that Charles Manson didn't use the AR-15 in the mass murders he orchestrated in the 1960s is already noted above.

Are you serious? If you read the posts in this thread, you will note that there have already been instances mentioned when the AR-15 was used by mass murderers. All you have to do to verify these instances is to check the Wikipedia article for each one, and you'll find the information there in front of you.

Since the AR-15 was made legal for the US consumer to own in 2004, sales of this weapon have gone through the roof, and it has become the weapon used by most of the criminals involved in mass murders since then. Verifiable facts have already been mentioned in this thread about several such instances, and I am getting further data together to prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt to anyone who is objective and is unbiased. However, it is my suspicion that you and others who are so adamantly objecting to this fact being mentioned in the article are anything but objective and neutral on this subject, regretably. --Saukkomies ^talk 22:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The AR-15 is the "weapon of choice" for millions of Americans who use it for hunting, sport shooting, and self defense, but you don't see that mentioned in the article either. Actually, the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America and it's almost never used in homicides. Actually, as that article points out, rifles as a whole are very rarely used in homicides. Face it, you're not going to slant this article with Brady Campaign talking points. By the way, I'd like to point out that your comments about AR-15 availability/sales/usage are also completely wrong. The rifle used by Lanza in this shooting was completely legal during and before the 1994 AWB, and even if it hadn't been legal he would have achieved the same results with a handgun. The most deadly shooting in U.S. history was perpetrated with a handgun, after all, not a so-called "assault rifle". ROG5728 (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

There you go, ROG. That's better. Now we're having an intelligent discussion about this. --Saukkomies ^talk 23:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The cited NPR interview does not state the AR-15 is the weapon of choice for mass murderers -- it just states the AR-15 is the most popular selling semi-automatic rifle sold today, and is very popular with shooters in general. Also, AR-15 legality has nothing to do with civilian vs. military users. AR-15 rifles have always been legal for civilians to buy and own, save in just a few areas due to local restrictions. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems like the crux of the argument is a question of notoriety of this type of gun in regard to the Newton Massacre, as outlined in WP:GUNS#Criminal use. Here are three articles focusing on this specific gun in connection to the most recent incident (one from a conservative publication, one from a liberal publication, and one from main stream publication)

• http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/27/setting-the-record-straight-adam-lanza-did-use-the-bushmaster-ar-15/
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/nancy-lanza-firearms-purchases_n_2318599.html
• http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/newtown-massacre-bushmaster-223/story?id=18000884#.UN-6ZncsGfa

It's not my original research linking this weapon to this recent mass murder, it has already been shown that this is being discussed in the media in major broadcasts (above and mentioned through out the talk discussion). The WP:GUN guide does mention laws being passed due to a gun's major role in violence, but it is not qualification, just that it has to be notably connected to certain events, and I don't know how this gun could be more connected then the national discussion which has already taken place. Moreover, wasn't WP:Guns written by WikiProject? I might be missing something, but I saw the Wikipedia:WikiProject site explicitly says "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles." I think it's very safe to say that this gun's connection to the Newton Massacre is far more notable then anything else listed on this page, which seems to have an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. Understanding that this is a heated topic, I propose we mention the use of this weapon in the Newton Massacre, but also mention that this a very popular gun sold in the USA. This way we are not censoring a discussed issue regarding this gun, yet at the same time we are showing the gun itself is popular, so as not to imply violence is more common with this type of gun. If anyone has data on the number of guns sold in the USA vs. other guns, that could help keep the usage information balanced. It also may be useful to mention if this gun is used for a specific shooting competition, etc. to show the large amount of uses, outside of violence. I don't care about the gun debate, but I am interested in how Wikipedia works so I Strongly Agree that the national discussion of this gun in reference to the Newton Massacre should be included. Robin the Bobbin (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the gun is being discussed in the media right now doesn't really mean anything. That is always the case following any mass shooting, regardless of what type of gun is used. Why does it matter that the killer used an AR-15 rifle, when he just as easily could have done the same thing using a handgun like the Virginia Tech killer? The brief blurb of media coverage you see right now is irrelevant. If there is any lasting impact on the AR-15 rifle (i.e. some type of legislation), that's notable. But at this point it's far too early to say if anything like that will happen. ROG5728 (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Rog, thanks for getting back to me, I appreciate it. I agree with you, discussion on this event is going to be highest right after the event. That's generally the case with every event. But the issue is if something is notable, not when it's notable. There are a ton of Wikipedia pages about things that were really important in the past, but that we don't talk about much today. Even though discussion waxes and wanes, we don't just delete history when it's no longer popular. People makes pages for Dexter episodes right after they air, and yet we aren't having this "popular fading" discussion there, when you know the episode is going to far less important 7 years from now. I don't see why there is a double standard here, where we have to wait for the discussion to die down, to prove that events are most popular right after they happen. The "malfunction" section of this page references a case that was never very popular, and decreases in popularity dramatically after it happened, yet it's allowed to exist. Let's not let there be a double standard here, just because the topic is uncomfortable to discuss Robin the Bobbin (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't think it's notable that the gun is being discussed in the media right now. As for the argument about what has been done in other Wikipedia pages, other stuff exists. Wikipedia doesn't operate by precedent. Just because something has been done in some other article doesn't mean it should be done here. The same goes for your comment about the "Malfunction" section of this article. This article isn't perfect, you know, and it's certainly possible that there are bits of info in it that aren't needed (but that doesn't mean we should add more of the same). Anyway, I wouldn't call it "deleting history" to not mention the Sandy Hook shooting in this article. So far, it's not an important event in the history of the AR15 because it hasn't affected its legality (or had any other major impact on its history). Remember, this is an article on the AR15; there is a dedicated article for Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. ROG5728 (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Rog, you make a good point, that we could not look at Wikipedia as a complete picture (thus not comparatively) and also that we should not since the site is fallible. You're right that just because we have X there, doesn't mean we need to have Y here. But I was only trying to respond to the "time" argument, saying that things are (almost always) more popular at the time they happen. If we put up a test for any event to see if it is as talked about more at the it's own time or later, then there would only be a handful of pages on Wikipedia. I don't see your time test being very useful or widely used.

There is already a site regarding the shooting, and I don't think this should duplicate that information here at all. But the great value of Wikipedia is its cross-referencing. I think it would be as simple as saying, "The AR-15 was brought to national attention for its use in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting".

I do see a dramatic difference in notoriety, where it seems that nothing else on regarding this gun has made national attention except the one discussion of it's misuse. Do you disagree, are the other other aspects on this page discussed more widely at a national level? Or are you saying that nothing on this page is notable and that it should completely be deleted? Robin the Bobbin (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The difference is, the main content in the article is directly relevant to the AR15, and that makes it noteworthy. The incident in Connecticut, on the other hand, is not directly relevant because it doesn't really have anything to do with the AR15. It hasn't affected its legality and it remains to be seen if it has any lasting effect on the rifle's history at all. The brief publicity doesn't really matter. Actually, on that note, it seems the media attention directed toward the AR15 has already started to die down considerably. ROG5728 (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Rog, I'm sorry but I'm really not understanding your viewpoint here. I don't know why you keep bring up that idea that lack of a law created due to this gun is important. That's an example, not a qualification and it's not even in a binding document. WP:GUN

Of course things are talked about most right after they happen, that's the case with this tragic event as it is with almost every other event that has ever happened. Saying the conversation is dying down is only natural regarding the conversation to any event. This page is about this type of gun. But even now there are still articles being written about the connection, like this one that I stumbled across yesterday (written on the 2nd).

• http://animalnewyork.com/2013/banning-assault-weapons-is-a-band-aid-on-a-bullet-wound/

If a series of national news stories focusing on the connection of this type of gun to this specific event over the course of weeks isn't notable, I really don't know what is.

Wikipedia is many things, as any encyclopedia should be, discussing history, technical aspects, biographies, etc. I don't think you have the right to say that the gun section is only allowed to have technical information and ignore the other, widely discussed, aspects of encyclopedic knowledge. The press that this connection has received has already made history (being written about very widely) and I don't see why you're so against the site reflecting that, being that it has far more weight and importance then anything else on this page. Robin the Bobbin (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the effect of media on peoples opinions of assault weapons should occur at assault weapon or gun politics in the United States. It doesn't look like it is currently covered adequately at assault weapon. It should not be covered here, since it is not relevant to encyclopedic coverage of the gun. Ryan Vesey 14:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Fact is there are many articles regarding this specific gun, AR-15, in relation to murder. Including from papers of record such as the NY Times, which is cited as a source regularly on this website. These references mention: this gun, it's popularity and the correlation between this gun and murder. Regardless of the legality of this gun, this needs to be mentioned. We have to be objective here, this article mentions users of this gun who uphold the law so it should also mention users of this gun who break the law.
• As for if these references are just reactionary to the recent killings, the so be it, the proposed content on this subject can be moved to the historical section of the article.
• Also it seems the people who revert this page are acting in bad faith by trying to muddy the arguments put forward on this talk page with gun control issues. Does Wikipedia have a way of dealing with these people? Timteka (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Fact is, even though the AR15 is the most popular rifle in America, it is almost never used in crime according to the FBI. Stop trying to twist reality. ROG5728 (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You are being disingenuous, many of major news outlets talk about an increase in killings in relation to this gun. Here are preliminary references to 130 murdered in relation to the AR-15:

Number murdered using or in conjunction with the AR-15	Murderer
35	Martin Bryant
27	Adam Lanza
18	William Kreutzer, Jr
13	George Banks
12	James Eagan Holmes
11	Michael Kenneth McLendon
10	John Allen Muhammad, Lee Boyd Malvo
7	Tyler Peterson
4	Shareef Allman
3	Jacob Tyler Roberts

Timteka (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, in a country of 310 million you were able to come up with a little over 100 people that were murdered with the AR15, and in how many years (or even decades) did that all happen? Way to prove my point. ROG5728 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Further, IF this POV drivel is allowed to be passed as encyclopedic, one must also include the number of AR-15s legally used in defense. When a thug uses a weapon like this, carnage ensues. When law-abiding citizens use the same for defense, often the perp isn't shot - he either flees or is arrested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.253 (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else notice that this debate, while "NPOV" has more or less identified how most people feel on this issue? People who strongly disagree won't openly admit it, but they're against gun restrictions. People who strongly agree won't openly admit it, but they're for gun restrictions. When you cut through their rhetoric that becomes pretty obvious. At least to me it did (I'm sure there ARE exceptions, but I'm guessing this is still true for most of them). Anyways, the gun debates I've seen have included the name of this gun with increasing frequency, to the point where someone such as myself (who is very bad at remembering random things like gun names and numbers) has memorized the name of the AR15. I see people on both sides of the debate on the news, etc. bringing it's name up again and again. Is that a veritable source? No, but frankly, you can say anything through "veritable sources" on this website because almost anything can be twisted or distorted to be a "fact". I don't care what the article ends up including or not including, but I think it's time to admit that this gun is becoming prominent in discussions both on and off the news related to gun control, for better or worse. 67.10.113.37 (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose : This motion to add the uses of a AR-15 in crimes is politically motivated. Wikipedia is a objective source of information. There are no Pro firearm statements, statistics or history in this article although several instances of such firearms being used legally can be surfaced and the fact that a few rifles were used in crimes illegally should not motivate editors to insert their bias. 132.3.41.68 (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

New method of Manufacture.

L1A1 FAL keeps removing http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=AR-15&oldid=516347380 where I introduced home manufacture. He / she cites it as a commercial link.

The referenced link is not commercial but a non-profit initiative who cite a method of manufacturing an AR-15 at home. http://defensedistributed.com/products/

'Printing' the controlled part at home is the point of the referenced article - to circumvent current legislation. The advance of 3D printing technology and the information published by Defense Dist. creates a new means of manufacturing an AR-15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.9.56 (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks too commercial to me. Though, if it is an advocacy group instead, I am not sure that is much better. In addition, what makes this notable? How is it any different from producing a lower receiver with machine tools in one's garage or workroom? Do we need to mention that any 'ol Joe can go out and buy a mill and machine one themselves?

Are you affiliated with this source?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

No I have no affiliation - found the website after reading BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19813382). http://defensedistributed.com/products/ specifically talks about manufacturing an AR-15. Whether they are commercial / advocacy / non-profit seems irrelevant. If they publish information relevant to wiki topic then can it not be used a reference?.. If a third party article described a method of milling the lower receiver of an AR-15 at home then it too could be referenced.

The project's key focus appears to be circumventing legislation and they use the AR-15 as a specific example. The Wikipedia page lists the manufacturers and then goes on to detail, at length, the global legislation controlling the distribution of the AR-15. Both these sub heading seem directly effected and relevant to the referenced article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.9.56 (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I will take your word on it for being non-commercial, but I still think the notability of home-made weaponry is questionable. Again, I don't see how it is really any different than someone machining an AR-15 lower in their garage. It's still a way to circumvent firearms legislation, depending on one's intentions.

However, if you feel it is absolutely necessary to include this, I think putting it on the main firearms page might be a better idea, especially since this applies to a LOT more than just AR-15's (for example, FN FAL upper receivers, M1 Garand and M1A/M14 receivers, pistol frames, and other usually milled or hammer-forged receivers. Feels like it would fit in more with gunsmithing in general than just on the page for a particular firearm.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and if you do put this on another page, it might be a good idea to include both it and the original BBC news story about it.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Gunsmithing may be a more appropriate category though the referenced page is very specific, giving digital blueprints of only this rifle. I guess someone looking up the AR-15 would be interested to know a method of making it at home (by whatever means) exists. I would. It did not cross my mind to refer to the BBC article. It does focus on the printer supplier repudiating the project though, and does not mention gunsmithing or the AR-15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.9.56 (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

We should leave the link off of any articles other than their own. It is relevant that this has just occurred and indeed there has been some violations. We are not a how-to guide and there doesn't need to be the wrong sort of encouragement here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

By that login, teh "how to" section on PUIT manuvers (especially the "how to get out of a pit manever") should be removed. Whcih is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.19.252 (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Wylde Chamber?

Why is the information on the Wylde chamber listed under "Malfunction?" If there is a specific malfunction associated with the Wylde chamber, that needs to be made clear in the text. Otherwise, the information on the Wylde chamber should be moved elsewhere in the article. 0x539 (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Use in killing sprees

There has been an edit war about a section named "Weapon of Choice in US Massacres". Obviously, that section title was emotional, and the content of the section was not up to snuff, containing some WP:OR. So it is understandable that it raised objections. However, there can be no doubt that the topic is notable and highly relevant to the article, so we need to include it somehow. In an attempt to make this less susceptible to emotional wording, I am suggesting to use a table, and I will implement it as a starting point. I'm aware that that might seem cold-hearted, but I'd rather err on that side, given the edit war. Please feel free to edit the presentation, but please keep the pertinent information itself. As a section title, I feel that "Use in killing sprees" might be more neutral. — Sebastian 20:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, that would violate WP:GUNS and WP:NPOV. There is not a chance of a "use in killing sprees" table passing muster. This is Wikipedia, not CNN. Please join the current discussion on this above. ROG5728 (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry, I was not aware of such a discussion. I had checked this page, but found no headline referring to this, nor a recent discussion towards the bottom. Now that you brought it up, I presume you refer to #Popular Culture Section, correct? I am not familiar with WP:GUNS (to be honest, I am normally not that interested in assault rifles), but I am very familiar with WP:NPOV, at least as it was a couple years ago, and I do not see what part of this policy says that you can't have such an objective table in an article.

In the meantime I started editing the page. I went about filling the table from "what links here". One problem I noticed with such a table is that often more than one type of weapon was used. The AR-15 was also used, along with other weapons, in the 1991 Sacramento hostage crisis, the 1997 North Hollywood shootout, the 2009 Guanajuato and Hidalgo shootings, the 2009 Geneva County massacre, the 2011 Cupertino quarry shooting and the 2011 San Fernando massacre. I did not include these yet, since that would have required some more work. However, I think what I got so far is relevant and noteworthy information, and I don't want that effort to be in vain; I therefore saved it as it is. But I will not edit war; if it gets removed, it will at least remain part of the page history. — Sebastian 21:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The WP:GUNS guidelines are clear on pop culture/criminal use trivia. A "use in killing sprees" table would never pass muster. Criminal use is only documented if it results in legislation being passed or gives the weapon greatly increased notoriety. The incidents you listed didn't result in either happening. Now, it's possible that the recent shooting in Connecticut will result in either gun control legislation or greatly increased notoriety for the AR-15, but at this point it's too early to say. ROG5728 (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the partial reply. Now, WP:GUNS is not a policy; in fact it isn't even a guideline:

This section contains advice about style. As such it contains the recommendations and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how to present articles within their area of interest. This advice is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and is not part of the Manual of Style.

That said, I do regard the recommendations of WikiProjects highly; I've often fought for those recommendations, regardless of whether I was a member in the applicable WikiProject. However, in this case, there seems to be a clash with how I understand NPOV. The way I've always dealt with POV issues is to keep objective information out in the open, so readers can form their own impression. I hold this to be an essential part of NPOV. How do you see it differently? — Sebastian 22:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It may not be an official WP policy, but it was formed with consensus by the Firearms Wikiproject in order to retain article quality and neutrality. As for WP:NPOV, which is a policy, creating a "killing sprees table" would obviously advance an anti-gun agenda. Aside from that, it wouldn't serve to do much else because it's basically just trivia and WP:RECENTISM. By the way, we could try to list the many hundreds/thousands of cases over the years where citizens have used AR-15 rifles in self defense, but you'll notice we aren't doing that either. Like I said earlier -- this isn't an issue of factuality, it's an issue of relevance and neutrality. This kind of information is only worth noting when it actually has a significant impact on the weapon itself, and at this point it's too early to say that this incident will have any long term impact on the AR-15. ROG5728 (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping up the civil discussion, and for your patience; I notice that you actually did answer this similarly above. Our main difference seems to me in how we understand WP:NPOV. You seem to be of the opinion that any information that advances a certain agenda is to be avoided. I don't see that in the policy. To the contrary, the policy says

"As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective [...]"

That is what I would like to achieve here.

You further mention WP:RECENTISM, but I don't see how that applies. WP:RECENTISM doesn't mean you can't write about recent events; all it does is express the opinion (which I share) that editors are are prone to the temptation to write about recent events and thereby "muddling or diffusi[ng] the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus." Each of the shootings has its own elaborate article on Wikipedia, and I don't think you would want to argue that the shootings will or should be forgotten in a few years. These shootings are an inextricable part of the subject. If you have information on how many lives have been saved by civilians using the AR-15, by all means, feel free to add it, along with reliable sources. That's how NPOV works. — Sebastian 23:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no way the information in this case could just be rewritten for a "more neutral tone." That has already been done. The tone is not the problem. Like I said, the only way you could hope to stay neutral with this kind of inclusion is to also document all of the cases where AR-15s have been used in self defense, which is only going to clutter up the article even more. That would inevitably distract from the real purpose of the article, which is to talk about the weapon itself and its technical characteristics. It would be much better to avoid the inevitable gun control debate altogether in this article and save it for something like the Assault Weapons Ban article. This article is for talking about how the AR-15 works, what type of caliber it uses, who designed it, who manufactures it, etc. The problem is not just that the information you're wanting to include advances an agenda; the problem is that it really does nothing aside from advancing an agenda. Unless this incident has some kind of long term impact on the AR-15, it's basically trivia. People associate the Intratec with the Columbine shooting, as WP:GUNS points out, but it remains to be seen if there will be that kind of strong link between Connecticut and the AR-15. ROG5728 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that add a long list of positive use cases would clutter the article. And besides, I can see that arguably there may also be cases in which the gun, without being used, already works as a deterrent, which of course is even harder to document. But I'm not suggesting such a mammoth task, this is not the only way to stay neutral. If there is a reliable main stream source (not a publication by the manufacturer) that summarizes these cases and ideally presents them in form of statistics, then you can easily include that without cluttering the article.

You write that for you the real purpose of the article are questions about its working, design etc. I understand that these questions are what motivates you, as a gun owner and gun enthusiast, to write about it here, and I'm grateful for that. Without dedicated enthusiast, Wikipedia would not be where it is today. However, the real purpose of the article is to serve the interested public. In that regard, a gun is different from most other areas of personal interest, such as model railroads, movies, or Pokemon. By its very nature, a gun interests a broader public than other hobby areas; it is very interesting to someone who might find himself at the other end of the barrel. I happen to be one of these readers. I didn't go to the article because I was intrigued by its technical features, but because of what people do with it. Admittedly, you may call this recentivism, since recent events obviously triggered my interest, but Connecticut was not the first time this happened. Even if, as we all hope, it were to be the last, and if people stop talking about it, the many lives lost are inextricably connected with this gun. — Sebastian 00:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hear hear, Sebastian! This entire discussion is absolutely ridiculous! All that is being desired is to mention that this rifle has been used a lot in mass shootings. Period. There is no bias built into this, and since it has had a track record of such use more than any other gun, that fact ought to be noted in the article for people to know. It is not taking any sides on the issue one way or the other. Those who are opposed to the inclusion of this fact are basically squelching the free speech of others. It's absolutely pathetic the excuses and arguments they have used. Include a non-biased statement about the use of this weapon among mass murderers, and be done with it already. Enough argument! --Saukkomies ^talk 00:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, the problem is not just that the information you're wanting to include advances an agenda; the problem is that it really does nothing aside from advancing an agenda. Unless this incident has some kind of long term impact on the AR-15, it's basically trivia, which is exactly what WP:GUNS warns against (and for good reason). People associate the Intratec with the Columbine shooting, as WP:GUNS points out, but it remains to be seen if there will be that kind of strong link between Connecticut and the AR-15. For reasons of neutrality, the Firearms Wikiproject has decided that criminal use should not be noted in these articles unless there is a good reason to do so. On that note, I should point out that literally none of the incidents of mass murder that you listed earlier in your table are actually strongly associated with the AR-15 today, and there is certainly no indication that they led to "greatly increased notoriety" for the AR-15. It's too early to say whether this case will be any different. ROG5728 (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Your insistance on preventing this information from being given to the public is advancing your own personal pro-NRA agenda. The fact that the AR-15 has been used repeatedly by mass murderers in recent years is noteworthy, and should be included in the article. It certainly is being discussed by many people in the media, and providing supportive evidence in Wikipedia for people to be able to verify the facts in this case is part of the mission of this public and freely-accessible encyclopedia. You are attempting to censor this information, which is vital to a relevant public discussion being done at this point in time, which is censorship, not proper editing. --Saukkomies ^talk 16:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sebastian asked me to comment here. It is probably a bit early to say whether the recent Newtown, Connecticut shootings will bring lasting notoriety to the AR-15. An encyclopedia does not need to rush to deal with this, though I definitely think we should see how things shape up over the next few weeks & see whether this becomes a case comparable to the Intratec TEC-DC9 and Columbine. Still, a couple of points:

• I didn't look through the history of the edit war on this, but if someone has several independent, prominent reliable sources that have written about the particular model of gun in terms of this history of use in massacres, it would seem that is exactly what would be needed to match that Intratec TEC-DC9 / Columbine model. ROG5728, do you agree, or do you think the bar is higher than that, and if so where do you think it would be set?
• With articles like How Walmart Helped Make the Newtown Shooter's AR-15 the Most Popular Assault Weapon in America in the current issue of The Nation, it seems to me like it will quite likely be so. As that article points out, the notoriety is already such that WalMart pulled this quite popular item from its website after the attack, which presumably they wouldn't have done if they didn't draw that sort of connection themselves. ROG5728, might that be notable in and of itself? WalMart doesn't do stuff like that a lot.

- Jmabel | Talk 02:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should wait and see what comes of this. A brief public debate always follows these kinds of incidents, but we should be concerned with long lasting implications. If any kind of gun control legislation is passed as a result of this incident, it should certainly be noted. As for the weapon's history, no, I don't think the other past incidents should be mentioned unless they meet the notability criteria on a standalone basis. As for Wal Mart, they apparently only pulled the listing for the rifle from their website -- they still sell it. Anyway, it's obvious there is quite an uproar at the moment but I think we should wait and see what comes of it. ROG5728 (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

One more time: This is not just a "recent" event. The tragedy at Newtown last week is just the LATEST in a series of events where the AR-15 has been used repeatedly in mass shootings in the US in the past few years. Aren't you paying attention? This has been stated and restated in this discussion over and over again. It is quite clear that those who are opposed to mentioning the use of the AR-15 as the weapon used by a series of mass murderers in the US in recent years are deliberately trying to prevent this information from being available to the public, and are using whatever gimmicks and tricks they can find to try to prevent this information from being made public. Why? One must conclude that the reason is because they are NOT BEING NEUTRAL in this. They have a political axe to grind, and they refuse to honor the spirit of Wikipedia in which relevant and important information is given to people so that they can make up their own minds about something. In other words, this is pure and outright censorship by a group of right-wing fanatics here, nothing less. --Saukkomies ^talk 16:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The relevant "recent event" may very well cause changes in gun laws. But, until it does, this is still just a single point event, horrible though it was. Long guns in general are not used repeatedly in mass shootings. The actual number in terms of percentage is around 1-2%, depending on whose study you read, of mass shootings in which long guns were used. The Texas clock tower shooting was done with an M1 Carbine. But, no changes in gun laws relative to the M1 Carbine occurred due to that shooting. The existing article on the Sandy Hook shooting already identifies what firearms were used, as it should, with links to the relevant gun articles, as it should, one of which was a long gun that wasn't even an AR-15 (it was a Bushmaster XM15-E2S). It is still entirely too early to put in more detail of what is clearly an evolving impact, relative to the AR-15 article. Doing so would only clutter the article with gun politics viewpoints, better served by their inclusion (which are already there) in other articles. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia: the entry on the AR-15 should be succinct and contain information relevant to the rifle itself. The fact that this rifle has been used in several recent high profile mass-murders is not so relevant to the rifle as it would be the pages on spree killing, serial killing, or mass murdering. If this information is truly relevant, shouldn't it be included in those places rather than on the page about the rifle itself? People looking for information on the weapon are going to find this page, people looking for information about weapons of mass murder are not going to find this page.

Neither the pages for the Remington 870 Express shotgun or the Glock 22 pistol contain any mention that they were used in the Aurora, Colorado shooting, despite those weapons being much more lethal than the AR-15 also used.

Also, I fail to find objective evidence cited in this discussion that suggests this weapon is inordinately popular with mass murderers (which would be necessary to satisfy notoriety guidelines.) The NPR interview cited above is merely opinion and conjecture, and meanwhile it is true that this is a very popular rifle in America (which implies easy access). There are other sources(such as the FBI's Crime in the US report) that definitively show that rifles as a whole are not used frequently in crime (something like 300 homicides used rifles in comparison to 11,000 - 12,000 total homicides and 8000 total firearms homicides). 71.85.231.179 (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you just call the statements made by the former head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms "merely opinion and conjecture"? That's data from a documented expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.117.19 (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Reindent All right. How is this for a compromise? Include a link under the "See Also" list of related Wikipedia articles that redirects readers to Mass Murder. You don't have to explain about it in the text of the article, just include the link at the bottom. --Saukkomies ^talk 22:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

How is that any more appropriate than a table listing the mass murders the weapon has been used in? This whole discussion has been about whether it is appropriate to call out the AR-15 as a weapon that is particularly favored by mass murderers. If it is, your tables and links would be appropriate. If it is not, then it is inappropriate. This isn't a question of compromising your point of view versus my point of view, it's a question of what encylopedic content should be. 71.85.231.179 (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No it's not. It's about you taking a hard-line, pro-NRA stance and me trying to find a compromise solution that is being rejected. --Saukkomies ^talk 01:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, it's a question of whether or not the proposed edits constitute good encyclopedic content. The proposed edits (by your own admission under the Popular Culture section) are to draw attention to the AR-15 as a notorious weapon of mass murder. A number of editors have contested this assessment for a variety of reasons. My main point is that the AR-15 page is not an appropriate location for the proposed content, because the use of this particular firearm in several high-profile shootings is not at this time especially significant. If it turns out to be significant (for example, if the use of this particular firearm ends up playing a major role in new gun control legislation) then it will warrant inclusion on this page, in the same vein as the discussion of the legality of civilian ownership of the AR-15 in Australia and the role of the AR-15 in the Port Arthur massacre. In my mind the only valid edit at this point would be to say something to the effect of "The use of the AR-15 in the Aurora, Clackamas, and Newtown shootings has motivated the discussion of a renewed federal Assault Weapons Ban." under the legality of civilian ownership in the US section. 71.85.231.179 (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A good encyclopedia would provide factual information to citizens to help them make decisions that effect their lives in a real and direct way. Right now US citizens are concerned about assault rifles being used in mass shootings, specifically the AR-15.

So, I would agree with what you are suggesting: include a mention of the weapon in the shootings in the way that you mention above.

The use that weapons are put to in society is just as relevant for encyclopedic inclusion as the manufacturing details. The use that such weapons as the Colt revolver, the Winchester rifle, the Kalashnikov assault rifle, or even the T-34 Soviet tank are all very integral to the encyclopedic information regarding them. Therefore, the precedence is already set for inclusion of information as to how the AR-15 is used. --Saukkomies ^talk 19:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not operate by precedent, so it doesn't matter what you've seen in other articles. What matters is the Wikipedia policies/guidelines, and the addition you're advocating would not be in keeping with them (as has been pointed out). ROG5728 (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

In your opinion, Rog. In other editors' opinions it is acceptable. You are not some kind of Wikipedia God, dictating your whims onto the rest of us. The fact that there is a precedent in other articles for this sort of thing indicates that this is not a black-and-white issue, regardless of whether you believe it to be or not. So quit trying to act like a jerk and give a little here - this is not going to go away, no matter whether you wish it to or not. Compromise. --Saukkomies ^talk 21:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I already did compromise at Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine and we added a fairly neutral mention there. Nothing is going to be added to this article, though, because this article is not even specific to the Bushmaster rifle. In other words, you're making your argument on the wrong page. ROG5728 (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The above passage I propose is not a compromise in the sense that we're agreeing on mutually acceptable language. As I said before, the question is whether a proposed edit constitutes valid encyclopedic content. Pointing out how the use of the weapon is influencing current events is at least passably encyclopedic (though not really, as per the recency guidelines previously mentioned). Trying to associate this particular weapon with mass murderers in general is most certainly not a valid statement, nor is it particularly encyclopedic for the AR-15. 71.85.231.179 (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Could the opponent(s) of adding such a phrase as "The use of the AR-15 in the Aurora, Clackamas, and Newtown shootings has motivated the discussion of a renewed federal Assault Weapons Ban" specify, for the record, what possible events would push such info beyond trivia, lest the goalposts be moved later on? Waiting for specific legislation to be 'passed' effectively gives the judgment of whether the AR-15 is notorious to one segment of one house of Congress -- the one courted and funded by the gun lobby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.117.19 (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Trivia is trivia. The fact that there has been "discussion" of a renewed Assault Weapons Ban is not relevant; not at this point. The gun control debate comes up all the time, you know. ROG5728 (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with ROG here. After every mass shooting there are always talks of renewed gun control, and of the three we've had to date this year only one has resulted in apparently "serious" talks (and by serious I mean that the president has formed a committee to investigate the issue.) The definite test for notoriety would be not just a renewed assault weapons ban, but a specific preamble, ban, or regulation that mentions the AR-15 by name, or a relevant lawmaker (meaning, someone who is crafting legislation) who calls out the AR-15 by name, or some objective source describing how the AR-15 can be shown to be particularly favored by mass murderers.

That is the issue: whether or not it's justifiable to call out the AR-15 as a mass murderer's weapon. If it is, then such information (listing the specific instances in which the AR-15 has been used to commit mass murder) deserves to be on the general page about the AR-15. If it is not, then it does not. As this is an encyclopedia, this assertion needs to be backed up by objective sources. As it stands, there are only three mass shooters that I'm aware of that have used the AR-15, all three of these have occurred in the last few months, there are many other mass shooters that have not used the AR-15, crime statistics show that rifles are very seldom used in crime (and gun violence in general), and the AR-15 rifle is particularly popular in the US. Given all that, it makse sense to say that their use in recent mass shootings is simply because they're currently popular in the US, and not because there's something intrinsically more desirable about this weapon than any other semiautomatic rifle that can accept large magazines. The easiest way to resolve this debate would be the citation of a verifiable and objective source indicating one way or the other. I know of several FBI publications (Crime in the US yearly report) and a US Dept. of Justice report (Guns Used In Crime, 1994) that show that rifles in general are not much used in crime, but these are silent on assault weapons and nothing I'm aware of specifically addresses spree killers or the AR-15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.231.179 (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not trivia. This weapon has been used in the majority of mass shootings in the past recent years than any other. That is a singular important aspect of its use, and should be noted. --Saukkomies ^talk 14:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is what the article currently says:

As of 2012, there are an estimated 2.5-3.7 million rifles from the AR-15 family in civilian use in the United States.[28] The rifles are favored for target shooting, hunting, and personal protection.[29]

Why is it such a big deal to also mention that it has been used repeatedly as the favored weapon for mass shooters in the US in recent years? This article is not supposed to be an advertisement for the AR-15 manufacturers, nor is it meant to be a brochure for the NRA, and the fact that this use of the AR-15 is not mentioned at all in the article indicates that the article is not objective, not encyclopedic, but rather a marketing brochure or NRA propaganda missif. This is patently obvious. --Saukkomies ^talk 16:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem, Saukkomies, is that your statement isn't true. The following http://www.thenation.com/blog/171774/fifteen-us-mass-shootings-happened-2012-84-dead# claims there were sixteen mass shootings in the US this year and of all those, only the Aurora, Clackamas, and Newtown shooters used the AR-15. Your definition of "mass shooting" might not be the same as used in the article (mine isn't) but it still gives us a starting point for relative frequency. Unless you can come up with objective, verifiable sources that support your claim, this discussion is closed, because the weight of verifiable evidence suggests that your proposed edit is simply not factual. The three recent high-profile shootings using the AR-15 are, as far as I know, the ONLY three mass shootings that have used the AR-15, ever.

I will say that your insistence has been such that I have even tried to go out and find examples of crimes involving the AR-15, thinking that I must have missed something. But, try as I might, I'm unable to find any significant crimes committed with an AR-15 outside of the three recent mass shootings. 71.85.231.179 (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I concede. I have not been able until today to find time to dig into this deeper (grading students' final papers and such), and was basing my conclusions on some reports I'd read and heard that were claiming this weapon was the top choice of mass shooters in the US in recent years. However, I have now found time to dig deep into this, and have discovered that indeed this is not the case. Here is one source I found to substantiate this: http://www.nycrimecommission.org/initiative1-shootings.php So I drop my case and apologize for the wasted bandwidth. I do wish, though, that those who used the ridiculous gimmicks of claiming this information (although erroneous) was "trivial" or "unencyclopedic" would have chosen another angle to respond to this, since neither of those claims were legitimate. User 71.85.231.179 (whomever he or she is) had the best response - it's always good to verify the information first. --Saukkomies ^talk 17:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

How long is this article going to be held hostage to NRA-member faNatics. This article's unwillingness to address the use of AR-15's in US massacres is like talking about the Atomic Bomb without mentioning Hiroshima or Nagasaki. FANATICS WITH GUNS ON THE BRAIN. [[user:kaneandhicks] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaneandhicks (talk • contribs) 01:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact is there is no compromise in either of these articles at all. Information on criminal use gets deleted from these articles regularly and systematically. Given this information is wished to be included by many independent contributors to Wikipedia, and reading above there is no Wikipedia rule as to why it should not be included in a normal way, this is censorship plain and simple. A section or at least a sentence in a appropriate section should be included. Timteka (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps in the "Knife" article, we should include a section on "weapon of choice for mass murders" too. 71.96.26.57 (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of fully automatic variants

Currently there are two paragraphs at the end of the "history" section that discuss the difficulty and legality of converting an AR-15 to fire fully automatically. These paragraphs are in obvious need of revision. I propose the following.

First, move these paragraphs from history to a new subsection of variants. The fully-automatic conversions cited aren't the first such conversions, they aren't particularly notable technologies, and didn't particularly shape the development or public perception of the AR-15. Hence, this material should be moved from the history section to a more relevant section.

Second, remove statements about the ease of doing a full-auto conversion. Point one- an encyclopedia should not be making subjective judgements as to the ease of the conversion without suitable source material backing it up. The current sources do not make this judgement at any point. Point two- neither of the mentioned full-auto conversions are "easy." To use them, one must identify what kind of rifle internals they have, verify they are compatible, and then adjust the weapon timing to ensure safe operation. Application requires at least an intermediate knowledge of the gun and it's operation, and doing it improperly can result in very dangerous conditions (i.e. your gun can explode). One of the linked sources specifically describes the timing adjustment process as "difficult." Point three- the two conversions mentioned specifically in the current wording (the lightning-link and the drop-in auto sear) are both regulated as fully-automatic weapons under the 1934 NFA and restricted under the 1983 FOPA... thus, no matter how technically simple the conversion might be, acquiring one of these devices starts with months of paperwork and paying thousands of dollars. I don't see how that can be called "easy."

Third, remove extraneous descriptions in this section. Examples of this are "Such modifications, unless using registered and transferable parts made prior to May 19, 1986, are illegal. (The Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986 has redefined a machinegun to include individual components where a semi-automatic firearm can be converted to full-automatic based on a 1981 ATF ruling on machinegun parts.)" While these are all true statements, they're the same regulations that apply to all machineguns as regulated by the ATF. Thus, these statements should be replaced with simpler language and a link to the relevant articles.

Fourth, properly source the remaining factual statements. The two linked sources appear to be someone's personal website, who is a self-described guns enthusiast.

I will leave this notice here for a few days for interested parties to comment. In particular, this gun is a very hot topic right now, and the exclusion of the "easiness" statement changes the message of the full-auto conversion section. The contradictory language that is there right now indicates some disagreement over this in the past (such as saying the conversion is easy and then immediately following with a statement about how one needs a lathe to make the conversion), so I want to address that disagreement head-on before any edits are made.

128.252.20.193 (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have done a little research on this edit. First, I have been unable to substantiate most of the factual claims of this section outside of the single already cited source. Unfortunately, this appears to be a hobbyist's website, and is not a reliable source for statements concerning what the ATF believes, and why different manufacturers design guns the way they do (such modifications might be directly meant to prevent modification to fully-automatic, but we cannot assume this is the intent). Furthermore, it appears that manufacturers are actually moving back towards using the M16 style bolt carrier and bolt in order to simply production.

The ATF makes no requirement about how difficult it must be to convert a firearm to fully automatic. They do state that a collection of components that can be readily assembled into a machinegun is considered a functioning machinegun, but the test is whether the actual held components are the components of a machinegun. For example, an AR-15 with an M16 bolt carrier and bolt is not considered a machinegun, because no combination of those parts can be used to make a machinegun. In contrast, an AR-15 alongside an autosear does constitute a machinegun because the autosear can be combined with the AR-15 to make a machinegun, even if they are not currently assembled as such. Meanwhile, an autosear by itself (not with an AR-15) does not constitute a machinegun because the autosear by itself is not a firearm. In one more twist, a drop-in autosear (DIAS) by itself IS a considered a machinegun, essentially being considered a full-auto conversion kit.

Second, the ATF has published at least one general guideline for the AR-15 within publication ATF P 5300-4 (page 155, in "Information Concerning AR-15 Type Rifles"). The ATF recommends that M16 components not be used in AR-15 to safeguard against the possibility of violating the National Firearms Act (NFA), but does not say that one cannot use M16 parts in an AR-15. They do reiterate the definition of a machinegun under the NFA, which is a firearm capable of firing more than once with a single pull of the trigger. The implication is that M16 parts are not recommended, but legal, so long as one does not actually create a machinegun. This is made explicit in several later requests for clarification (a clarification from 2008 is the most recent I'm aware of, http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/ATF%20M16%20Letter.pdf there is an older letter from 2005 for which I am unable to find a good source, but it can be viewed in many forum threads such as at http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=509073 ).

The current wording suggests that the AR-15 is made deliberately differently from the M16, but many sources online contradict this. Even if it is true, there are many AR-15 manufacturers which may or may not use M16 parts or make their rifles incompatible with such. Differentiating all the different manufacturers of the AR-15 with respect to their suitability for conversion to fully-automatic is obviously not something relevant to an encyclopedia article.

Ultimately this is not a huge part of the AR-15 rifle and shouldn't be that big of a deal on this page. I would propose something like the following wording:

"The AR-15 is mechanically different from the military M16 and is not capable of firing fully automatically, despite their similar appearance. The AR-15 can be modified to fire fully automatically, but doing so is nontrivial and regulated the same as the creation of any other automatic firearm."

I hesitate to use the word "nontrivial" but the combination of regulatory hurdles and gunsmithing skill necessary really does suggest that converting an AR-15 is not a simple thing. 71.85.231.179 (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

My addition to "history section"

I have repeatedly added a correctly quoted and reference very small section of a NY Times article into the history section only to have it deleted w/o explanation by three different editors. My addition is not vandalism, nor is it disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trblmkr1 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edit is a copyright violation as it directly quotes material when that material could easily be added in your own words. If you consider adding the text in your own words, I suggest you discuss whether or not it should be included here first (as I don't know whether all of the other reverts were based on the copyright issue or the content itself). Ryan Vesey 21:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Quotations, when properly marked as such, are not a copyright violation but count as fair use, unless they comprise substantial amounts of the original text (see WP:QUOTE for guidelines how to use quotations). As opposed to the IP, Trblmkr1 has now correctly applied quotation marks, so unless you guys have content issues with this text, I suggest that Eyesnore self-reverts this edit. To Trblmkr1, please do not restore this text yourself. We have a rule that "an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." By inserting your text again and again you have already exceeded this limit. De728631 (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect, the quotation did not meet our fair use requirement as it used an excessive amount of quoted information when no quotation was necessary. Furthermore, in text attribution was necessary. Ryan Vesey 21:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

From a formal point of view, in-text attribution would only be needed for a biased or contentious statements, but as this seems to be a fairly neutral report to me, citing NYT with a footnote was totally sufficient. And I think this is also not excessive use of original material. Of course quotations can always be rewritten and be portrayed with one's own words, but that is not the primary requirement for a chunk of this size since the quotation as such may still be useful. So what has to be determined is the need for it. De728631 (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The only phrase that would require an in-text explanation of context or should completely left out when quoting directly from the source, is the "was introduced... last week" bit. De728631 (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

According to MOS:QUOTE, if a large chunk of a source is placed into an article it needs at minimum in-text attribution, otherwise it's just a quote without context or explanation. Even with in-text attribution such a quote is unnecessary and probably not allowed per WP:NFCC since that exact wording is not critical to the content, and it can be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice. - SudoGhost 22:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the quoting issues, the content he added does not merit inclusion in this article, for reasons already established here on the talk page. See Talk:AR-15#Popular_Culture_Section above. ROG5728 (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the one of User:Trblmkr1/IP 24.188.182.55's edits not because of a copyright violation, but because the way the source was added seemed very non-neutral, and the editor seemed to have an attitude to match, especially since there has been much discussion here on the shooting subject, which as far as I can tell, Trblmkr1 did not take part in.

However I did notice that another editor did add something else into the current revision, again, cited from the NY times. Personally, I believe the way this was added was much more neutral.

There is a fine line here between a pro-gun agenda and an anti-gun agenda, and I have been reading the discussions above the and have seen both sides there. Personally, I'm not a fan of mentioning everytime somebody dies of a gunshot wound (and as someone suggested above, if everytime a crime is committed with it is notable, then so is every instance of self defense with one). However, I do believe that the gun has undeniably received notoriety from the Sandy Hook incident, and to ignore this would not be a good thing. However, I do not believe that it is lead material. As for the current revision which I was originally addressing, the source for it is the NY times, whose viewpoint I question, however I believe the way it was added is in a fairly neutral way. Just my thoughts.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, being it wasn't an AR-15 rifle that was used, there is no need to mention it here. It was a Bushmaster XM15-E2S, as shown here. Have removed the incorrect information in this article. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I do believe that you're splitting hairs - the Bushmaster rifle in question is a type of AR-15. It's like saying soda didn't make somebody fat, Pepsi (or another specific brand) did. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Furthermore, the media doesn't demonize only Bushmaster models specifically, they demonize the AR-15 in general.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. Accuracy matters. If Pepsi accidentally released a batch of soda that was adulterated with some pollutant, would you include a warning in the Coca Cola article that "Cokes across America were accidentally released containing the pollutant"? Of course not. Being that AR-15 is a Colt registered trademark, we shouldn't claim that one of their products was used at Sandy Hook when it wasn't. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a trademark, but it's also colloquial term for any rifle using the action or appearing as such, to the average person. Joe Schmoe, who knows nothing about guns, isn't going to call it the "Bushmaster XM-15" he's gonna call it an AR-15 because that's how the media refers to them, because in spite of being a trademark, its a common term. Compare with Jello, or even Coke, for example. Furthermore, the article doesn't treat it as exclusively a Colt item (see the legal area and the "Manufacturer" sections especially). Besides, you might want to remove Bushmaster from the list of manufacturers from the infobox then...--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, it might be a good idea to split the article, too. Have one titled "Colt AR-15 rifle" or something, and "AR-15 type rifle", the latter might also possibly be renamed from the "AR-15 variants" article. Just a thought, because you allege that this article is about the Colt-made AR-15, in many areas, it is more about the generic action in others. I cannot deny that I agree with you that Colt should not directly be associated with the incident, but the trademarked term "AR-15" really has become too colloquial to completely ignore.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just to let people know, Trblmkr restored his edit without the copyvio. Since I undid another of his edits, it's possible that you might miss it in the edit history, I'm not sure if anyone has a problem on this one. Ryan Vesey 15:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Ryan. Nonetheless, even the completely factual, in my own words, devoid of opinion version was too much for some. Now my crime was: "(cur | prev) 16:28, 30 January 2013‎ Happysailor (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (43,146 bytes) (-218)‎ . . (Reverted addition of dubious unsourced content (HG)) (undo)"

I fully expect you and others to leap to my defense given your unfailing rectitude and verve for a completely accurate WP. Please revert for me so I don't break the 3RR again. Trblmkr1 (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, Happy Sailor. Trblmkr1 (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the accuracy of the addition by Trblmkr1, the content itself does not merit inclusion in this article for reasons already established here on the talk page. See Talk:AR-15#Popular_Culture_Section above. So far there has been no notable federal legislation resulting from this incident and the whole discussion seems to have largely died down already. In the meantime, the Colorado shooting trivia also being added is without a doubt not notable here, and its inclusion seems to be nothing more than a coatracking attempt. ROG5728 (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The stated Rate of Twist need a Unit. 1:14 what? Meter (SI unit)? cm? inch? feet? Sugar cubes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.98.233.229 (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Assault Weapon

"Today's AR-15 rifles are often coined as an assault weapon, which is not technically true. In order for any rifle to be considered an assault weapon, it must have many specific features including fully automatic and/or burst fire capabilities, which the current production AR-15's do not have."-From the AR-15 page "In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain cosmetic, ergonomic, or construction features similar to those of military firearms. Semi-automatic firearms fire one bullet (round) each time the trigger is pulled; the spent cartridge case is ejected and another cartridge is loaded into the chamber, without requiring the manual operation of a bolt handle, a lever, or a sliding handgrip. An assault weapon has a detachable magazine, in conjunction with one, two, or more other features such as a pistol grip, a folding or collapsing stock, a flash suppressor, or a bayonet lug.[1] Most assault weapons are rifles, but pistols or shotguns may also fall under the definition(s) or be specified by name. The exact definition of the term in this context varies among each of the various jurisdictions limiting or prohibiting assault weapon manufacture, importation, sale, or possession, and legislative attempts are often made to change the definitions. Governing and defining laws include the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban,[2] as well as state and local laws often derived from or including definitions verbatim from the expired Federal Law."-From the Assault Weapon page i just want to double check before: this should be deleted, right? Dudeaga (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)