Talk:AR-15–style rifle/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Use of rifles in homicides overall

@Ianmacm: This proposed edit was a bit of a rehash of a similar edit by an IP, that was over-detailed for the lede. I think it fits in the proposed section ok, as it provide some quantification to the preceding statement that a "majority" of homicides are by other weapons. I find it quite relevant to the "Use in crime and mass shootings" section of this article. Can you expand on your thoughts? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

We already cover this, with the first sentence.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Sort of but not really. The first sentence of the section is about handguns. If anything the proposed add is more on-topic than that sentence. VQuakr (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance, if the majority are with handguns then rifles (well all long arms) are a minority. Not do I think that specific years or figures are useful, do we up date this every year? if not why not?. Also the issue over AR-15's is not how often they are used, but how many are killed in mass shootings using them. Thus (for a complete statistical picture) we would also need casualty figures, number owned compared to number used in crime...and god knows what other statistics. We do not need this much detail in a small paragraph.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I was aware of this, and thought that this edit was a bit point-y. It is true that rifles are not commonly used in homicides in the US, and that handguns are far more commonly used. However, there is a risk of using this to sidestep the controversy over semi-automatic rifles as a whole being used in mass shootings. With the exception of the Virginia Tech shooting, nearly all mass casualty shootings in the US involved the use of some sort of semi-automatic rifle. Not all of them were AR-15 style rifles though: the Orlando nightclub shooting was a SIG MCX and the 2019 El Paso shooting was a WASR.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Which is why I argue for vagueness not exactitude here. This is ongoing and tomorrow all of this could be out of date. So the more exact we are the more we will have to update to take into account the latest...incident(s).Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ianmacm: pointy or no, we are in agreement that this doesn't belong in the lede. The underlying fact (that assault-style weapons have an outsized role in mass shootings but are uncommon weapons to be used in homicides overall) should be neutrally communicated. No reduction of the coverage of mass shootings in that section has been proposed. VQuakr (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: "a minority" and "about 2%" both true statements but they have different connotations. We use most recent year statistics all over the place on WP. VQuakr (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

And in places we do not. And again we if we have stats we need them all for context, and that will be to burdensome to the article.Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm very in the middle on this. I think the reason for inclusion is valid given the politics around this topic. However, I also see that it comes across as a bit on the pointy side and feels like it was included to make a point vs because it fits naturally. I think it would be a more valid point if this topic were about the range of rifles that people might normally think of as assault weapons. Finally, I recall this was a point of discussion a while back. I feel like the final text was that sort of balance that no one really loved but everyone felt they could live with. For that reason I would be reluctant to change things. After a very rocky period this article seems reasonably stable. That's a good thing. Springee (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

around half AGAIN

It not 4 Las Vegas shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Sutherland Springs church shooting, Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, thats 5. Around half means (perhaps) half, slightly less then half or slightly more then half. Its vague enough for us not to need updating it every time a nutter with a grudge decides to exercise his right to fight oppression.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Both sides of the argument have used statistics to bolster their case, which is why I am wary of doing this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Doing what?Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven. This was another compromise solution that wasn't what either side of the debate really wanted but did represent a negotiated consensus. Springee (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-automatic rifles are dangerous/safe. Oh yes they are. Oh no they aren't. It is possible to cite statistics appearing to support both of these positions. WP:MEDRS says "Avoid over-emphasizing single studies" and there is a similar situation here. As mentioned previously, rifles as a whole are not the same as AR-15 style rifles or semi-automatic rifles. I'm not against pointing out that rifles as a whole are not commonly used in US homicides, but their role in mass shootings is what has led to the controversy. This is similar to what I said on my talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you are arguing against including the material you just removed. That is, if I'm not mistaken restoring the long standing version of the article. I support that. Springee (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"Around half" is factual and handily avoids the need to keep the exact number up-to-date. @Ianmacm: I appreciate your concern about statistics, however we as editors are not hand-picking statistics to support a certain conclusion. Instead we're following reliable sources which overwhelmingly tell us that this is indeed the relevant statistic. –dlthewave ☎ 14:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Problem is it will only be true at the time of publication. In fact everyone of the sources we use is now out of date. So (as I said) this avoids the need for constant re-writes and does reflect the RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

If this consensus was indeed reached I apologize for changing it. I was not aware that this issue had been debated before-- it seemed from the references that "around half" had been rounded up to include the Orlando shooting which did not use an AR-15. That said, my other change, making it clear that it was "14 out of 93 sampled mass shootings" instead of "14 out of 93 mass shootings" is valid. The reader may be mislead into thinking that only 93 mass shootings have occurred, or that 14/93 is an approximation of a fraction of a much larger sample of data. Looking at only 93 mass shootings when hundreds occur per year is not a full picture. Zortwort (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Also @Slatersteven:, you say it's not 4, list out 4, and then say that list comprises 5 shootings in your first paragraph here. How is it not 4? Perhaps I've misread what you're saying, but it is certainly 4 shootings. The only issue here is whether it is excessive work to fix the number if another occurs, but these events are rare enough to begin with and no doubt there will be focus on the article if another one does. I don't see how pessimism about the possibility of another mass shootings motivates a factual miscommunication. Zortwort (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

OPps your correct, my mistake. It had been 5 (or was it 6) and I miscounted when I OP's.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Quotes

I do not have an opinion one way or another but I will say the edit summary made me laugh.[1] I never got to "Undid Communist propaganda" before and I am a little sad about that. PackMecEng (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The edit is here and it is the first time I have been accused of being a communist (which I'm not). As for the edit, the worry was that the quotation marks look like MOS:SCAREQUOTES, which should generally not be added. The sourcing is here and says "Only 14 of the 93 incidents examined by [Mayors Against Illegal Guns] involved assault weapons or high-capacity magazines." This is a direct quote and should not be modified. Now I know that some people don't like the terms "assault weapon" or "high capacity magazine". I'm not a great fan myself, and prefer the term semi-automatic rifle which is plainer and more descriptive. "High capacity magazine" is also vague and hard to define. These terms have been used mainly in the context of US gun control legislation such as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to use MOS:SCAREQUOTES here since they're not used by the source. Whether we like it or not, "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazine" have become commonly-accepted terms, and Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a platform to police their usage. –dlthewave ☎ 03:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

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

This article should be combined with the "Armalite AR-15" page. Any distractions such as criminal acts with the weapon should have a separate page. MelioraCogito (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

No to the combination. The Armalite AR-15 is an M16 rifle prototype, not an AR-15 prototype. The trade name should not be confused with the type or weapon we are discussing in this article. There are, quite literally, hundreds to thousands (if you count home-built) of manufacturers of AR-15 pattern rifles. The Armalite model has a distinct history and needs to stay separate. As do the M16, M4, etc. This is the same for any other firearm. You don't put a Remington 17 in with an Ithaca 37 article. --Winged Brick (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I would tend to agree.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I think this article is supposed to be about the general AR-15 platform, whereas the Armalite AR-15 is about the original rifle. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

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

• Canada has banned the AR-15 following the 2020 Nova Scotia attacks, along with various other assault-style weapons.[2]; however investigators there have not been precise about what weapons were used, beyond saying that Wortman owned two semi-automatic rifles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Seesm we can have a one sentence mention.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree a one sentence mention but I do want to verify, do we know that the rifles in question are actually AR-15 style (as opposed to military style, semi-auto etc). I get that there is a fair chance that they are and just as so many self-adhesive strips are Band-aids, many military style, semi-automatic rifles are AR-15s. But not all of them. If the rifles actually used aren't or haven't been confirmed to be "AR-15's" then I think that should probably go in perhaps the Assault Weapons article. BTW, this is an issue I had when we created this article years back. AR-15s are a subset of what I would call military style, semi-automatic, rifles that fire an intermediate cartridge. I would have preferred to have say three articles where we now have two. One for the legal term "Assault Weapon" since it's legal definition varies by state and can include firearms that most wouldn't consider an "assault rifle". Next you have AR-15 style rifles. That would be an article about the generic AR-15 and would largely avoid the political aspects associated with the platform other than where it's specific to the AR-15 design (highly modular), receivers are relatively easy to fabricate since the working pressure of the firearm isn't contained by the receiver. The final category would be for the "military style, semi-automatic rifles". It would be the article that discusses what people generally think of as "assault weapons", "black scary rifles", "modern sporting rifles", [euphemistic] or [pessimistic] name here. This would include AR-15s but also AK pattern rifles, semi-auto versions of other modern military rifles etc. The advantage of this last bucket is then no one (myself included) has to say "well that's not an AR-15". Anyway, that's just my two cents. Springee (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The Canadian ban includes 1500 weapons[3] of which the AR-15 is only one. Wortman may not have used an AR-15, but the ban is notable anyway. The ban is also similar to the one introduced in New Zealand after the Christchurch mosque shootings.[4]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

If the ban is generic for 1500 weapons, it seems mention might be more appropriate in some broader cover article rather than in each of 1500 individual model articles. Aside from ambiguity about identification of the firearms used by Wortman, the cited article leaves some ambiguity about what is meant by the terms ban or banned. It seems unlikely this prohibition would apply to Canadian military personnel. What about police forces? Are there any other exceptions? Thewellman (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Err murder is illegal, solders killing in war is not.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it truly that simple? Some seem to have more tolerance for soldiers killing soldiers than for soldiers killing civilians, and object to the civilians killed as collateral damage when bullets are sprayed about. When it comes to arming the police with such weapons, civilians would seem to be the only targets. If "Trudeau said the weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time," one might think Canadians should prohibit police use of such firearms unless the Canadian government envisions a scenario when killing a large number of Canadians in a short period of time would be a worthwhile goal. Thewellman (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Let me start by saying I'm arguing against this but only to try to persuade. I wouldn't revert Slatersteven's proposed sentence even though I don't support it. Many states and countries have bans that apply or even name AR-15s. We don't list them. So far we have limited this article to only things that are really about AR-15 style rifles rather than stuff that generally applies because it applies to all military style, semi-auto rifles. So I don't support inclusion based on that hierarchical thinking. Springee (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I don't support adding it as a new section. Absent a better integration in line with the discussion above I'll revert the recent change. Springee (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I tried to clean up the recent Canada addition. I'm still not in support of the material but I figured it was better to clean up what was added rather than just revert. Springee (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Well here is a clear link being made [[5]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I would rather we not quote Trudeau's appeal to emotion political grandstanding. Springee (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It shows that there was (at least in his mind) a clear link, that this was aimed at AR-15's. Indeed this is exactly why its (supposed) use in crime is so important. It is used as a political platform, it affects national legislation. The AR-15 is more famous for being the infamous weapon of mass shooting than as a "sporting gun".Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it illustrates the point that "AR-15" has become the Kleenex of military style, semi-automatic rifles. However, that generalization of the term would be a different sub-topic. Perhaps a compromise we could have a generalized comment stating that AR-15's were mentioned by the backers of the bill. Springee (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, if you must.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

How about we see what others feel about it, then make a move (or not). I've appreciated the lack of edit drama on this article and respectful nature of the disagreements when they occur. Springee (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

[This source] lists the weapons included in the most recent Canadian legislation. The "Ban" is described as Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or restricted. One of the nine major groupings is firearms of the designs commonly known as the M16, AR-10 and AR-15 rifles and the M4 carbine, and any variants or modified versions of them which probably supports including mention in this article; although it may be appropriate to address the exceptions specified by parts 47, 49 and 50 of the Canadian legislation. Inclusion of upper receivers in addition to previous emphasis on lower receivers may also be worthy of discussion. The regulation describes self-loading and detachable high-capacity magazines as the primary features of concern, which might warrant discussion of AR-15 style rifles using slide actions and smaller magazines with impediments to rapid replacement. It may also be appropriate to mention the two-year amnesty period, and possible exemptions for First Nations, law enforcement, and military personnel. Thewellman (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the AR-15 is not one of 1500, it's more like 1400 of 1500-- there were around 10 (I don't remember the exact number) actual classes of firearms banned, and the 1500 figure accounts for the fact that they individually named every brand that the RCMP had registered in the country. Another thing, the Mini-14, M-14, etc. (also newly prohibited in Canada by the same OIC) articles do not mention this or anything pertaining to gun control, and in a sense it is more notable that they were banned as there are fewer countries that have done so than with the AR-15. It seems to me that any mention of specific instances of gun control in this article indirectly pushes the opinion that "AR-15s are uniquely bad and should be banned", and such facts should be kept to broader articles about gun control, for example Firearms regulation in Canada. Most other articles on firearms are constrained to the same sort of technical information, it just seems to show a certain bias when this one isn't. Zortwort (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Coment

Extended content

Wile I believe proactive discloser of others personal opinions to be an important part of WP:NPOV you should never ask me to recuse myselves (how do you expect me to fead my narcissism) from a discussion on the basis of my point of views. To do so contravenes WP:NPA.(because i say soo) It does not matter if I go to a article for the first time and speak to people like this when i want to remove this content(oppiset of my opionoin) that states AR 15 are not the weapon of choices for mass murders "A study by Dr. Fox a professor of criminology, and statistics assembled by Mother Jones on mass shootings from 1982-2018 show the weapon of choice overwhelmingly is semi-auto handguns, and a very common misconception is that AR-15's or similar rifles were preferred. AR-15's specifically in the last 35 years have only been used in 14 mass shootings. Rifles have been used 25 percent of time in mass shootings, semi-auto handguns almost half of the time.[64][65][66]" "I removed it because it was literal nonsense. I suggest you self-revert." Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[6] "I reverted a literally illiterate and confounding paragraph(or just three senteces whatever). It was a mess. But whatever." Simonm223 (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[7] "Ok, going forward I will refer to the edit with the word I meant, even though it's a little bit less kind. It was illiterate." Simonm223 (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[8] "Its "un-intelligibility"(made up word so what I am still smarterr than use) lies in its complete failure with regard to grammar. Thus illiterate seems apropos. I decided to go with illegible, IE: impossible to read, because it seemed slightly kinder. But notwithstanding my word choice the edit is still galling and WP:CIR still applies." Simonm223 (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[9] Aand there is no problem with after more than a month of claiming i have no bias, proclaim my true point of view. "This general type of firearm is a people-killer designed to kill humans and I sometimes question why some people devote so much time to defending its dubious honour." Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[10] To claim that a persons POV make them incapable of serving the neatral goal of Wikipedia is to make the false claim that some peoples are inherently neatral and lady justice is blind. (my vast expeence says this is impoable) if i your superior can not be neatral then none of you infearars can be. Such a people does not exist.(I says so therefor it is fact) EG: centrism is unnecessary and i got my bed buddy to bail me out anyway.[11] Simonm223 (talk) 12:27 , 8 May 2020 (UTC) References

This needs a considerable rewrite to comply with WP:TALK. Please make specific proposals for improving the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

AR pistols

Before I attempt it, I thought I would ask what y'all think of adding a section on AR pattern pistols. As far as I can tell, there is not a separate article on this subject. I think that it makes sense to create a section in this article, rather than a new article, since AR pistols are variants of the same platform. Hist ed (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I can see what you mean, that's a tough one. AR pistols are a fairly popular configuration but difficult to categorize since this is the rifle article and they are no longer a rifle at that point. I suppose I would be fine with it here unless others have a better idea. PackMecEng (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest an internal link to a separate article in the See also section of this article. Considering the ongoing difficulty of clarifying the differences between military M16 rifles and civilian AR-15s, I anticipate the equally significant differences between rifle and pistol would cause unnecessary confusion and disruption of this article describing the AR-15 style rifle. Thewellman (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

AR pistols, how are they then same?Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

AR pistols use the AR-15 action and share many of the same parts but are more compact with shorter barrels. Basically, they're mechanically identical but take the form of handguns. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

So not these [[12]] as they look like carbines or SMGs, not pistols?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Basically you take a standard AR upper and lower. Uses a short barrel and no stock then the ATF classifies them as pistols instead of rifles. They look like this with the buffer tube, which is totally NOT a stock, sticking out the back.[13] They are silly in my opinion, not really good for anything but they are basically a short-barreled rifle that does not require a tax stamp since it is technically a pistol. PackMecEng (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to include it here as a subtopic. If you talk to gun people they would probably consider it part of the larger AR platform since it uses an AR mechanism and family of parts. Legality aside (in the US there are a number of laws relating to converting an AR rifle to an AR pistol. However, for the most part (and I'm only speaking from what I've read) the difference is the length of the barrel and the lack of a shoulder stock. Thus, mechanically you could change an AR rifle into an AR pistol just by changing the barrel and butt stock. Legally it's not that simple but I don't know the details. Anyway, given the AR pistols are an obvious derivative of the rifle I would suggest inclusion here. My only concern would be finding good sourcing. Firearms in general is an area where most mainstream coverage is about firearms politics rather than the mechanical details. Sites that have that sort of detail are often going to fail a more strict reading of WP:RS even though they often are from people knowledgeable in the subject. Even that last part is somewhat hard. Who counts as an "AR-15" expert? Not likely to be an academic nor something published in the general press. But that's something we have to deal with when it comes up. Springee (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps adding the AR-15 pistol information to this article because of mechanical similarities would be a good opportunity to separate the Modern Sporting Rifle redirect into a separate article describing those versions of the AR-15 platform specifically designed to avoid objectionable military features while retaining advantages useful as a sporting rifle. Thewellman (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure I can support such a content fork, its a marketing term.Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't really like the "modern sporting rifle" term. When trying to discuss this topic informally I'm more likely to refer to them as "black scary rifles" or "what most people think of as an assault weapon". I think there is a legitimate justification for splitting off discussions of "black scary rifles"/modern sporting rifles vs AR-15 pattern rifles and their decedents. In my head a BSR/MSR page would talk about AR-15s as well as semi-auto versions of the AK pattern rifles and other rifles that marketed to the same part of the gun buying public. This is the article where I would include the politics related to civilian ownership of AR-15s and other BSR/MSR. The AR-15 style rifle page could be refined to specifically focus on fire arms based on the AR-15 design including some of the derivation rifles. My reasoning is that most of the politics associated with people owning an "AR-15" also apply to a civilian owned AK or other magazine feed semi-auto etc. Yes, "AR-15" is almost used generically when people talk about civilian ownership etc. Conversely, those who are interested in the specific mechanics and rules compliant variations (with no discussion of their moral merits) would do so in a separate article. <PB>I say that is what I would like to see but I'm not sure how to do it. First, I don't know how one would keep the "Assault Weapons (generic class of fire arms)" separate from the current Assault Weapon (legal definition) articles. I'm not sure could easily source enough good, non-self published sources to fill the topic and I can't even think of a name for the topic that doesn't conflate the legal definition of Assault Weapon with the generic use I'm envisioning nor one that avoids the overly euphemistic (MSR) or overly snarky (BSR). Additionally I'm not sure how we would draw a line between "AR-15 variant" and no longer AR-15 variant but clearly using some off the shelf parts. It would be come very messy and that's before someone inevitability decides that my structure is "an attempt to whitewash". Springee (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

If the decision is made to include these firearms as a subtopic of this article about rifles, I suggest that subtopic be entitled short-barreled rifles in accordance with User:PackMecEng's accurate assessment of their origin, despite the (possibly temporary) United States regulatory determination of their status as pistols. Thewellman (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

USA specific paragraph written without specifing

Second paragraph states that the rifle was banned in some year range. But it does not specify in usa. I think that should be added. Also it is odd to place the statement in introduction as there is no mention of its link with mass shotings specifically in USA the introduction so it is an odd statement (if this statement was included then this paragraph would make scene on why a usa specific statement is used) Urvagrawal (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! I clarified that the assault weapons ban restricted the sale of these in the United States. Use of this style of rifle in some mass shootings is mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead; I am not clear on what the requested change is there. VQuakr (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

use in mass shootings as part of opening section?

Why does it tack on the comment "they have been used in mass shootings" without any context or precise value? I could make the same claim about a firearm that was used in one mass shooting in theory. IE there has to have been a colonial era mass shooting (3 or more people) ergo muskets were used in "mass" shooting too although its not mentioned in the opening there.. We can and should include the prevalence of debate surrounding the firearm with regards to mass shootings but that doesnt mean it makes sense to just blurt something out like that unless all firearms ever used to commit mass shootings should be kept to that same standard of inserting with no transition that they have been involved in atleast one mass shooting before. I propose we either edit the line and make it reflect the content of the article better by having it focus on how the rifle was used in "several high profile mass shootings" or something to that degree unless we want to remove the comment entirely since it is poorly written and does not coincide to the standards of the rest of this website. Bgrus22 (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

To some extent I agree. The real problem is semi-automatic rifles as a whole, not AR-15 style rifles. However, the prevalence of the AR-15 style rifle as the most common type of semi-automatic rifle in the United States has led to the controversy, as sourced from the NYT article.[14]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

A number of reasons, there is the fact their use has garnered rather more attention. There is the fact they have been used in many (and most?) of the deadliest mass shootings. But we could change it to "Their use in mass shootings in the United States has been controversial". Which sums up the section.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

As I've said before, with the exception of the Virginia Tech shooting, nearly all of the high casualty mass shootings involved some sort of semi-automatic rifle. This is not only true in the United States, but also Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Norway etc. This is why allowing civilians to own semi-automatic rifles is controversial.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but that is also irrelevant to this article.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree the sentence is odd and dangling. What about taking Slatersteven's suggestion and tweaking it a bit. Was:"Their use in mass shootings in the United States has been controversial". Well I suspect the use of any gun in a mass shooting is going to be controversial since mass shootings are always bad/controversial. What about "The rifles are controversial [in part] due to their use in mass shootings [in the United States]". I want group input with the bracketed sections. I'm suggesting "in part" because it otherwise implies that the only reason why these would be controversial is their use in mass shootings. That's probably not the only reason. "In the US" simply because AR-15's have been used in mass shootings outside of the US. Springee (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

That works, at the end of the day (it can be argued) they are far more well known for this (at least outside the USA) than for "sporting".Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy with Springee's wording as well. –dlthewave ☎ 18:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, I think we are in agreement to not include "in the US", what about the "in part" qualifier? Springee (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Since yet another IP removed the sentence in question I replaced it with the sentence we discussed above (including "in part" excluding "in the United States"). Springee (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Single use IP. No issue with the new text.Slatersteven (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

as someone who has never heard of these rifles except in the context of their frequent use in mass shootings, I think the almost throwaway sentence at the end feels out of place and doesn't give sufficient weight to the issue. I literally came to this page to find out why they're controversial; I think it would be worth (very briefly) summarising the basic arguments for and against. 92.17.144.186 (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

This was arrived at after torturous negotiations, I would be wary of changing it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I would like to point out this:

[blockquote]A majority of firearm-related homicides in the United States involve the use of handguns.[77][78][79] According to a 2013 analysis by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 14 out of 93 mass shootings involved high-capacity magazines or assault weapons.[80] Nevertheless, AR-15 style rifles have played a prominent role in many high-profile mass shootings in the United States[81] and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.[82][/blockquote]

This seems to be linguistic propaganda that comes from an anti-gun and fear mongering agenda. AR-15's and it's calibers .223\5.56 in general are very common within the United States. 14 out of 93 mass shottings is surprisingly low for a common weapon and mass killings. The involvement of phrases like "high-capacity magazines" and "assault weapons" are also politicized weasal words normally used in anti-gun rhetoric. "High-capacity" has no real hard definition and "assault weapon" is normally used to describe semi-automatic rifles, which is the vast majority of rifles on th civilian market. The quote above also makes a demonstration of "we do have this analysis that says it's not used in many major crimes, but we're still going to say it's a very big deal anayway". If AR-15's were used in 50% or more, then I'd say it would be justified. As it sits, this section is editorialized to be biased in favor of making the AR-15 a choice weapon for mass shooters.

Please refrain from inserting your biases into this araticle. 73.120.83.83 (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

lede

I think it would make sense to mention that it's like the military rifle in the lede. As someone who doesn't know much about guns, that would be much more meaningful than "Eugene Stoner" and "Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation", which are effectively meaningless to me. Benjamin (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Such a statement would be unproductively divisive but relatively obvious, because all rifles are like military rifles in many respects. I suggest the more useful part of the description of non-military rifles is how they differ from military rifles. The lede includes links for readers unfamiliar with the terms you mention. Thewellman (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not necessary because virtually all semi-automatic rifles were designed with military use in mind.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the AR-15 basically the civilian equivalent of the M4? Benjamin (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The two rifles share a common ancestor, as described by the Armalite AR-15 link, but they have evolved to meet very different goals, similar to the way the original Willys MB has evolved into the Humvee for military purposes and sport utility vehicles for civilian purposes. I would question the purpose of describing sport utility vehicles as the civilian equivalent of a Humvee. Thewellman (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

SUVs are obviously much more different. Benjamin (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I am unsure we ned this, nor am I sure how we would word it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We kind of have it by saying the design is based on the ArmaLite AR-15. Perhaps that could be expanded to say the "based on the Armalite AR-15 which was also the progenitor of the US military as the M-16" or similar. I'm not sure how, at a high level, you would say it's like the M-16 et al. Springee (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Where?

This is a valid point, we need to say where it's considered what, many places do not even allow this type of gun.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Can you clarify the pronouns "it's" and "what," and define "this type?" Many places restrict ownership of virtually any firearm. The wide variety of accessories available for the AR-15 lower receiver may be viewed differently by differing jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions restrict ownership of the AR-15 lower receiver itself, while others limit upper receivers, specific cartridges, self-loading mechanisms, detachable magazines, magazine capacity, barrel length, overall length, sound suppressors, bayonets, pistol grips, or folding or detachable shoulder stocks in either the AR-15 or any firearm. Ownership restrictions may also vary according to the age, qualifications, profession, citizenship or political status of individuals. It may be more appropriate to create or augment separate articles to unambiguously clarify legal perspectives of these different features for different individuals in different jurisdictions. Thewellman (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The tag was placed due to us saying in our voice that "When manufactured with a barrel length less than 16 inches and without a shoulder stock, it is legally considered to be a pistol as opposed to being a short-barreled rifle", but is that true of all jurisdictions?Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we should insert something like under US federal laws. The law regarding barrel length is not specific to the AR-15. US law treats "rifles" differently than "pistols" (not sure if "pistol" is the legal term) and the restrictions are generally less strict with regards to possession of rifles (who can have them and where). Barrel length was one of the the criteria used to decide what is a rifle vs pistol and 16" was set as the demarcation length. I don't see an issue mentioning this as something specific to US law but it should be done in a way that makes it clear this is a general law, not something that applies specifically to AR-15 style rifles. I don't know the best way to source that without possibly tripping OR concerns absent finding a source that specifically says as much. Springee (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

"UNder US law cWhen manufactured with a barrel length less than 16 inches and without a shoulder stock, it is legally considered to be a pistol as opposed to being a short-barreled rifle"?Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes [not a legal expert on this subject]. When made without those features the gun is considered a pistol and thus subject to laws related to pistols vs rifles and I think the SN can never be converted from pistol to rifle after that point. If made just with a short barrel it becomes a Short-barreled rifle which requires registration with the US BATF. A side affect of this rule is things like the debates over pistol braces since they look like a shoulder stock and could be used like one even though "they aren't". EDIT: I think I mistook your suggestion as a question about the subject. I think that could be OK. I assume that is supported by the source. I think we can take application of US law to be implied. Springee (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I have talked the liberty of losing it out of the lede, as I am not sure that is the right place for it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

That works for me. I don't see a need to have it in the lead. I would see that as a specialty case. Springee (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Question About Content

This article is supposed to be about the AR-15 style rifle, not gun control. Why then is this quote listed: "Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau commented "You don't need an AR-15 to bring down a deer".[93]"? His opinion as to whether anyone "needs" an AR-15 is irrelevant to this article. If the article were about gun control, quoting his opinion would be acceptable. I recommend that the quote be removed on this basis. Elysian13 (talk) 06:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Because he says "AR-15", thus making it about the AR-15, not just gun control.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Currently I think we are giving undue mention to Trudeau's comments. I don't think inclusion of Canada's ban is DUE and the fact that Trudeau said "AR-15" as a generic term doesn't help. Above I wasn't willing to fight to keep the single sentence out of the article but I think what we have now is too long. While a case can be made to include Canada's prohibition on the rifle, there is no reason to include Trudeau's one line opinion quote. I think we should remove that. Springee (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

50-50 on this. The fact that Trudeau specifically mentioned the AR-15 is relevant, as it highlights the belief of the Canadian government that civilians do not need to have this type of weapon. As ever this may not please some people, but as I've said before, the real debate is about semi-automatic rifles as a whole, not specific models.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

If we were saying something like (and I'm not suggesting this specific text), "In 2020 Trudeau passed an executive order [not sure if it was literally an exectutive order] banning AR-15 and other semi-automatic rifles.[citations]", I would be OK with it. My issue is quoting Trudeau's specific statement which is nothing more than a politician grand standing. Trudeau isn't a firearms expert so his opinion as to which rifles are suitable or needed for hunting is irrelevant. "Not needed" for hunting also wasn't the reason for the ban. Presumably Trudeau was predisposed to banning this class of rifles and did so when a shooting provided the politically expedient opportunity. Springee (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be in this article, but Trudeau knows damned well it's a ridiculous thing to say. It's a dog-whistle to incite people who are pro-gun-rights. It would not appear to be an unreasonable statement to someone who doesn't know either way, but don't assume Trudeau speaks out of naive ignorance. Politicians exist to manufacture and reinforce polarization and partisan disagreement among the public. Once the argument is about "who needs what" for this or that, or which of 50 different made-up genders get to use which bathroom, you're no longer talking about the state's monopoly on the use of force to defend its self-interests, much less central banking or any other material issue. And this is why public discourse has taken a nosedive in recent years. It's like watching a continual trainwreck. So no, this asinine sentence should not be in this article and we should not even dignify it by arguing over it. AP295 (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this really a level of discourse befitting the world's largest encyclopedia and repository of human knowledge in the 21st century? In the age of information? It's shameful and profoundly disappointing. AP295 (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

See wp:soap.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Right back at you. A measured and civil discussion over something ridiculous is still propaganda, and I don't think I'm out of line by pointing out how loony it is on a talk page. AP295 (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Well yes you are, discussion has to be wp:civil. Nor do you get to dismiss user's views as ridiculous or propaganda. I can't support something that reads like it trying to right great wrongs.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Didn't see your objection in time. I removed the sentence from the article but feel free to undo it if we haven't reached a consensus. One thing I've noticed about Wikipedia is that, under a sufficiently liberal interpretation, the rules prohibit just about everything. I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion about the article, and it's hard to AGF when people invoke Wikipedia's rules instead of addressing the point I'm trying to make. AP295 (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I have. I invoked the rules because your argument is based upon things like "50 different made-up genders get to use which bathroom", not as far as I can see anything to with policy or imprv9ing the article, beyond POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

By the way, my objection of 20 August 2020 still stands.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Pray tell, why does Trudeau's offhanded comment belong in an encyclopedic entry? It's merely his opinion, and I see no reason to include it here except to provoke readers who may not share his opinion. AP295 (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Because the leader of a nation thought it was relevant to the passing of a law. Nor do I see how it "provokes" anyone, and it being provocative is not a valid reason for exclusion, we are not wp:censored so as not to offend people. If RS think it is note worthy so do we.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Would it not belong in Trudeau's article? Or Firearms regulation in Canada? Or preferably nowhere because it's obvious political agitprop, especially in the context of this article. AP295 (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It might well belong in all of them, but that does not mean it does not belong here. As to "agitprop", irrelevant, as this is neither art nor literature. Nor is your assumption it is "agitprop" a valid reason for exclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

So this has been up for a while and I haven't seen much in the way of new news on the matter. I think we should remove Trudeau's quote from the article. Springee (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much support here for its presence in the article. Looks like this section has been up for a few months. A consensus has been reached, so I'll remove it. AP295 (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Trudeau's quote isn't massively important. It is important that Canada had a major overhaul of its gun laws after the 2020 Nova Scotia attacks, which banned semi-automatic rifles including the AR-15.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

True, but we also need a valid reason to exclude it, not just wp:idontlikeit.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONUS says we need a valid reason to include it. While the law does impact AR-15's it also impacts basically any other gun that generically are called assault weapons. Trudeau could have just as easily said, "you don't need a Mini-14/AK/etc to shoot a deer." He appears to have used AR-15 as a generic yet easily identifiable term just as one hears the name Porsche and instantly associate a sports car (vs an SUV or sedan). If we were just saying Trudeau banned the weapons by name I would find that better but instead this is repeating political grandstanding. Springee (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ian and Springee's take. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Superb contribution. Insightful, completely out of left field. AP295 (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I will bow out now, as we are just going round in circles. I have seen nothing that addresses the reason for inclusion, and until I see something based on more than an assumption its leftist propaganda I will oppose removal.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven It amounts to unsolicited polemic in the context of a non-political article like this. AP295 (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It amounts to unsolicited polemic in the context of a non-political article like this. And if this is not a valid reason for its removal, I do not see how Wikipedia can maintain any pretense of being an objective, neutral source of information and not an instrument for disseminating state-sponsored agitprop. Please, keep it in the political articles. AP295 (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Really the entire section Use in crime and mass shootings belongs to the category of unsolicited polemic. The average American is bombarded with political agitprop on a daily basis. Constantly antagonized. If someone wants to know about "mass shootings", they'll visit that article. If someone wants to know about AR-15s, they'll visit this one. It's a blatant attempt to influence public opinion and reinforce polarization through FUD. It borders on psychological abuse. AP295 (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Our grandfathers and great grandfathers owned, fought, and hunted with M1 Garands. Semi-automatic rifles (good heavens). It was never a problem until columbine and the mass media coverage that incident received. Murder became "gun violence". Mind-numbing drugs became "medicine". It's a phenomenon affected entirely by linguistics, perception, and genetics. Monkey see, monkey do. Forced cultural decay, and the selfish people who facilitate it. AP295 (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I suggest removing Trudeau's comment in the absence of demonstration of Trudeau's credentials as a reliable source about deer hunting.Thewellman (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll have you know Trudeau is a legendary big game hunter. A modern day Allan Quatermain. AP295 (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you could suggest where one might find reliable sources documenting his experience or knowledge on subject of humane and effective killing of game animals? Thewellman (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

He's the leader of a nation! Of course he knows what he's talking about. Show some god damned respect. AP295 (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's do a fun thought experiment, shall we? Trudeau's comment pertains to hunting, so let's see how it looks when we move it to the appropriate section:

==Hunting== Many hunters prefer using AR-15 style rifles because of their versatility, accuracy, wide variety of available features, and wide variety of calibers (see below).[1] Collapsible stocks are convenient for hunters who pack their rifles into remote hunting locations or for length of pull adjustments to fit any sized hunter.[2] Construction with lightweight polymers and corrosion-resistant alloys makes these rifles preferred for hunting in moist environments with less concern about rusting or warping wood stocks. Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau commented "You don't need an AR-15 to bring down a deer".[7] Positioning of the AR-15 safety is an improvement over traditional bolt action hunting rifles. Many states require hunters to use reduced-capacity magazines.[3] If a hunter misses with a first shot, the self-loading feature enables rapid follow-up shots against dangerous animals like feral pigs or rapidly moving animals like jackrabbits.[1] Hunters shooting larger game animals often use upper receivers and barrels adapted for larger cartridges or heavier bullets. Several states prohibit the use of .22 caliber cartridges like the .223 Remington on large game.[4][5][6]

More likely to provoke laughter than irritation. If Trudeau's comments on deer hunting are to be included, I must insist we should put them in the "hunting" section. AP295 (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

That[[15]] is a wp:POINTy edit and considered to be a type of disruption. Please self revert. Springee (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Whatever you say. If Trudeau's comment about deer hunting doesn't make sense in the context of the hunting section, then why should it make sense in the section about mass shootings and crime? It doesn't, or rather it shouldn't. But here we are having a conversation about this ridiculous sentence, as if it weren't mindless polemic. AP295 (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with Slatersteven and his leftist propaganda and stonewalling. I've lost count of how many times he has reverted my deletions and edits of POV violations. Here, he pulls his usual ploy of claiming something is relevant merely because some leftist said something about the topic. Statements by leftists about AR15s are OPINIONS, not facts, and those opinions do not become facts worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia entry by converting it to a fact by saying "Lefty McLeftist said ARs are bad." Slater and people like him have zero intellectual honesty, they violate and skirt the rules, call in their friends for assistance in a fake "consensus." Consensus does NOT mean a majority. It means that there exists no reasonable disagreement about anything in the entry. In other words, it is something everyone can live with.

Like every other contentious entry on Wikipedia, leftists have polluted it with their propaganda. Rmmiller44 (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Not some, lots and not just leftists. So please lay off the invcivility. I have not questioned your motives, do not question mine.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Stop inserting this obvious political bias into the article

I would like to point out this:

[blockquote]A majority of firearm-related homicides in the United States involve the use of handguns.[77][78][79] According to a 2013 analysis by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 14 out of 93 mass shootings involved high-capacity magazines or assault weapons.[80] Nevertheless, AR-15 style rifles have played a prominent role in many high-profile mass shootings in the United States[81] and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.[82][/blockquote]

This seems to be linguistic propaganda that comes from an anti-gun and fear mongering POV. AR-15's and it's calibers .223\5.56 in general are very common within the United States. 14 out of 93 mass shootings is surprisingly low for a common weapon and in regards to mass killings. The involvement of phrases like "high-capacity magazines" and "assault weapons" are also politicized weasel words normally used in anti-gun rhetoric. "High-capacity" has no real hard definition and "assault weapon" is normally used to describe semi-automatic rifles, which is the vast majority of rifles on the civilian market. Except the people who commonly use "assault weapon" generally confuse (intentionally or not) black polymer firearms as something extra deadly. The quote above also makes a demonstration of "we do have this analysis that says it's not used in many major crimes, but we're going to intentionally ignore it and say it is a very big deal and a scary gun anyway". If AR-15's were used in 50% or more (no, the "10 deadliest shootings" reference don't count) of all shootings then I'd say it would be justified. As it sits, this section is editorialized to be biased in favor of making the AR-15 "a choice weapon for mass shooters" as one of the references puts it. The first part of the paragraph contradicts these other references and the article is written as if that should be ignored.

Please refrain from inserting your biases into this article and stop reverting my edits. 73.120.83.83 (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

We are not, we are inserting what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

No, the article currently reads like it's inserting a fact, and then followed immediately by fear mongering commentary as if that's fact as well which contradicts the previous fact. These references here come from politically Left and generally anti-gun resources like ABC and the BBC, so it's not a neutral perspective or bias. This section needs to be rewritten without the "AR-15's are a choice weapon for mass shooters", because it's factually not. 73.120.83.83 (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

"These references here come from politically Left and generally anti-gun resources" Nonsense. We do not rely on "neutral sources". Per the policy on Biased_or_opinionated_sources:

• "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Dimadick (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You're intentionally adding sources that contradicts actual facts like how AR-15's are used in a very small minority of gun crimes and a minority of mass shootings. Why even bother adding in "AR-15's are the choice weapon of mass shooters" unless you willingly want to deceive other users? 73.120.83.83 (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No we say just that and also say how RS present them. We do not say "AR-15's are the choice weapon of mass shooters" we say "and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.", which is a fact they have been.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

A federal judge, who compares an AR-15 to a Swiss Army knife, overturns California's ban on assault weapons This is in the news today and may be worth adding to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The section on mass shootings is leftist propaganda in violation of POV. Every type of weapon has been used in mass shootings, and the AR15 is used no more than any other weapon. Rifles are rarely used in any crimes, and ARs are only a fraction of those.

The section is also irrelevant. No one would put a section called "Use of cars in drive by shootings" in an encyclopedia entry on cars. Leftist bias in entries, reversion of changes removing this POV, stonewalling of discussion, dog piling, and failure to gain consensus is rampant all across wikipedia. It has become a propaganda arm for the democrat party. Rmmiller44 (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

it is also one of the things RS talk about, a lot. So we do.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@slatersteven

You consider every leftist politician and pundit to be a RS. Let me say this again: those people are expressing political opinions and propaganda, not relevant facts. You saying, "They said X about AR15s" and providing a source for them saying X about AR15s does NOT convert their opinions into an encyclopedic fact.

This is an encyclopedia entry about a physical object. The entry needs to stick to FACTS about that object and not peoples opinions about it.

No gun owners or gun rights advocates are making changes to this entry extolling the virtues of this gun, e.g. "Senator Gunny McGunnut said that the AR15 is the greatest protection of liberty ever built."

There is no symmetry here. I and others are trying to maintain the intellectual integrity and neutral POV demanded by Wikipedia standards. You and your leftist ilk are attempting to turn this entry into gun control propaganda. Rmmiller44 (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

If you think the sources we use are not RS take it here wp:rsn. Nor is a political opinion irrelevant, far from it, they are often lawmakers (and in some countries the use of AR-15's has led to their actual banning). We also do not say it is a fact, we say "people have said this". As to " we do not discus the weapons virtues", well yes we do such as "Many hunters prefer using AR-15 style rifles because of their versatility, accuracy, wide variety of available features, and wide variety of calibers (see below)".Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Sophistry. By your argument, literally anything would be justified for inclusion if any politician said anything about it.

Versatility and accuracy are PHYSICAL FEATURES of the gun as opposed to say bolt action rifles.

As an experiment, I might just add a section gushing praise for the AR15 by some politician and watch as you or your ilk delete it.

You're awash with justifications for your propaganda. I'm deleting that shit. Go ahead and make something of it. Rmmiller44 (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Rmmiller44, I think the problem here is a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia. If we had a benevolent dictator editor they might decide that this whole article should spend more time on the operating characteristics of the gun, decide that a few of the experts on some of the firearms websites are the clear experts we should be quoting for technical information, including asking direct questions. We also might decide that some of the media articles that attack the AR-15 conflate features that are common to other, non-AR rifles (say the Mini-14, AK pattern, other 5.57 based semi-autos etc). We would then put gun politics related questions in a different yet linked article. The problem, and this is a problem on many articles, not just here, is that we don't have a benevolent editor/dictator to tell us the right balance. Right or wrong, the way we try to decide what should go in and in what amount is the wp:NPOV policy. It largely says, how much do reliable source (the Wikipedia definition wp:RS) talk about the subject and in what capacity. Most mainstream sources talk about AR-15's in context of crime, legality/morality of ownership, and why people want to own them. They don't speak nearly as much about the mechanical/operational details. Sadly those are often best found by finding specialist websites. Exactly the sort of websites that Wikipedia asys should be avoided (we have no way to know which are truly experts vs idiots). Sadly that can mean that a true expert might have less voice vs a writer from the Huffington Post who has never picked up a gun and assumes they are all evil. This is simply how Wikipedia operates. It's not perfect but it's hard to think of a way to fix it that won't end up making other problems worse. Please understand the inclusion of firearms crime on the pages about firearms has been a contested topic (see here [[16]]) and it has been hard to find a balance between those who think we over vs under emphasize crime in these articles. Springee (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

ERr, I have never said we have to include the opinions of politicians, I have talked about media coverage. In fact (as far as I can see) the only inclusion of the opinions of politicians is the opinion of the organization "Mayors Against Illegal Guns", which is used to say they are not in fact that commonly used in mass shootings.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you arguing for that to be removed?Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Political bias

"The rifles are controversial in part due to their use in high-profile mass shootings." This is nothing but anti-gun rights bias and political opinion. This has no fact in it and is all opinion. It violates the neutral point of view rule in favor of fearmongering. This should be removed from the article due to being all opinion and no fact.BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The New York Times are perfectly reliable, and that AR-15 style rifles have been used in numerous mass shootings is not opinion, but fact. FDW777 (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

FDW777, I'd love to read that article and refute it, but it is locked behind a paywall. And having been used in 25% of mass shootings (according to the Wikipedia page "Mass shooting in the United States") is not numerous at all. If you were to see 100 donuts, namely 48 glazed donuts, 14 chocolate donuts, 25 old-fashioned donuts, and 13 strawberry donuts, would you call the old-fashioned donuts "numerous"?BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

That's your problem not mine. Pay to read it. FDW777 (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's what a lot of RS say. I do not in fact recall any other gun they get the same degree of coverage, or in fact, had had the same impact on legislation around the world. Yes they are very controversial, for the reason said.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, the controversy is undeserved and is entirely subjective. They are not controversial to a large minority of the population. And Wikipedia should be defaulting to objective facts and viewpoints, not just viewpoints held by the majority.BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, not with what "a lot of people" think. A lot of people think all kinds of BS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

+1. As I've said before, the real issue is allowing civilians to own semi-automatic rifles. The AR-15 style rifle attracts most of the controversy because it is the most common type of semi-automatic rifle owned by civilians in the United States.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

You are letting your political biases get in the way of an apolitical Wikipedia. BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

ianmacm, that is not the reason and is, again, entirely subjective and an anti-gun rights view.BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

NPOV means we represent all viewpoints in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources, and the controversy surrounding these guns has received so much coverage that it would be an NPOV violation not to include it. I think the Criminal Use section does a good job of summarizing the controversy from multiple viewpoints. –dlthewave ☎ 12:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Dlthewave, that is a falsehood. There are no pro-gun arguments anywhere in this page. In the past, AR-15 style rifles have been used to stop mass shootings, and that is shown nowhere in this article.BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, give an RS saying that an AR-15 had been used to stop a mass shooting from happening.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, here's an article: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/defensive-ar-15-uses/ #2 and #6 are examples of this.BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I said RS (please read wp:rs), and 2 is a robbery, not the kind of mass shooting we are talking about in the article. In 6 (the Sutherland Springs church shooting) 22 people died, it did not prevent it (hell reading that article it sounds like the killer was leaving already).Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

BurritoQuesadilla, I think many of the articles that are critical of AR-15's do come at it from a anti-firearm perspective and often "blame the tool" rather than the shooter. They also frequently conflate "AR-15" for what are often generically called (in political discussions) "assault weapons". That said, we can not deny that many RSs have discussed AR-15s and their use in mass shootings. For that reason the topic should be somewhere on Wikipedia. Personally I would like to consolidate the "AR-15" and "Other similar rifle" political topics into a single article. The motivation isn't POV fork, rather it's that currently a discussion related to reactions related to a crime committed with an AK-pattern rifle or other "similar but not technically AR-15" isn't here. Rather this topic is scattered across a number of articles. I would like it in one spot as it could be both more comprehensive and balanced. However, until that happens, this content is certainly DUE somewhere and, absent a parent article, here is an appropriate place. So long as it is here I think what we have is impartial and a reasonable consensus. Springee (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Use in self defence

It has been suggested we need a section (or line) about the use of the weapon in self-defense. Should we have such a section (assuming it can be sourced to wp:rs)?Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Right now all I can see US having (at best) is

"Gun rights activists have claimed it is regularly used for self-defense ".

Though I am unsure where to place it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

We definitely need to the reliable sources for this first, and work out the wording before it's added to the article. (I just reverted an attempt to add it without a source.) BilCat (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I am in definite support of such a line. BurritoQuesadilla (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

So how about some RS supporting it?Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Also read wp:lede, this would go in the body.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

the lede is too technical

Specifically, the second paragraph. The lede certainly doesn't need to contain the AR-10 patent number, and probably not Eugene Stoner's name or really anything about the AR-10. On the other hand it probably ought to mention the connection to the M-16, which would address one of the comments above. How's this:

An AR-15 style rifle is any lightweight semi-automatic rifle based on the Colt AR-15 design.

The Colt AR-15 is a semi-automatic version of the M-16 rifle sold for the civilian and law enforcement markets in the United States. While Colt retained the trademark of the AR-15 and is the sole manufacturer able to label their firearms as AR-15, most of Colt's patents for the rifle expired in 1977. Many firearm manufacturers currently produce rifles based on its design. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's too much. Yeah, the patent numbers are really needed but I don't think it's hurting the overall readability (but I would be OK with removal of the numbers). I think the origin sentence is useful. The part about modern sporting rifles should be pulled from the lead. It's an artifact of the origin of this article when it was titled Modern Sporting Rifles [17]. It is correct to say the AR-15 type rifles are based on the AR-10 design and not the M-16 design since the lineage starts with the AR-10 and the M-16 (and later M4 etc) are parallel evolutions from the same origin. Perhaps stating that the military M-16 and M-4 trace back to the same Armalite AR designs as the semi-automatic AR-15. Honestly, the only change I think is really needed is to remove the MSR sentence from the lead since it's no longer the article subject. Springee (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and cleaned up that paragraph a bit. I'm not sure if there's a way to write the history more clearly, it's fairly complicated but also necessary for understanding what the topic actually it. –dlthewave ☎ 13:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Proper English grammar in this article

The following quotation from this article is not a complete sentence: "Though a 2021 case from the Eighth Circuit found otherwise."[37] Please edit this statement either to form a complete sentence, or combine it with the previous sentence to make it a subordinate clause. Thank you. 67.7.18.63 (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I hope I have addressed the issue. Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-automatic?

The first sentence: "An AR-15 style rifle is any lightweight semi-automatic rifle based on the Colt AR-15 design."

I get the idea of trying to differentiate commercially sold rifles from military ones, but this is just wrong. The AR-15 was originally designed by Eugene Stoner with selective fire. The NFA is the sole reason why selective fire AR-15s are not the norm for civilians. This would imply that any AR-15 style rifle sold in the military/police market equipped with selective capability is somehow not an AR-15. And if one takes an AR-15 and installs a drop in auto sear, is it no longer an AR-15?

I propose adding "or automatic" to the opening line. The clarification on the difference between commercial and military versions seems to be appropriately explained in the Comparison to military versions section.

(oh also, is an AR-15 required to be "lightweight"?) Ironmatic1 (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This article is really about those guns sold on the civilian market. But if you can find some examples of ar-15 style rifles that are capable of full auto (as sold, not modified) we can add it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The AR-15 style rifle is not designed for military use, it is a variant that is sold for civilian use. Civilians in the USA have been (largely) banned from owning fully automatic weapons since 1986.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

If this article is going to be exclusive to models sold on the American civilian market, maybe the title should be changed to Civilian AR-15 style rifles in the United States? The AR-15 is not a "variant" of the AR-15. How could it be a variant of itself? It is a family with models within it. The AR-15 design was absolutely intended for military use, it was specifically made for military trials and the .223 cartridge was literally requested by the US Army, and it was designed with selective fire capability. See ArmaLite_AR-15#Scaling down the ArmaLite AR-10. The Hughes Amendment doesn't change the reality of the design; if it didn't exist, every AR-15 sold would likely have auto or burst. Military designations such as the M4 are simply a set of specifications for what is fundamentally an "AR-15 style rifle". Ironmatic1 (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

That is why we have an article on the colt AR-15, and I am unsure any other country allowed fully automatic weapons either on the civilian market. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This needs some input from a gun expert, and from reliable sourcing. My understanding of the term "AR-15 style rifle" is that it refers to the semi-automatic version that is sold for civilian use. The article notes the difference with the military version, ie the lack of fully automatic or burst fire.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Ianmacm, I get what you are saying and this is I think an unfortunate aspect of where this article came from. This article was originally "Modern Sporting Rifles". To me that would mean it's an article about semi-auto rifles firing intermediate power cartridges and often similar in appearance and operation to some select fire, military rifles. I think the original intent was to cover what many people think of when they think of "assault weapons". At the same time we had an AR-15 article that I believe covered both the Colt trademarked AR-15 rifles as well as the large range of AR pattern rifles (my term). This resulted in a lot of issues when crimes committed with AR pattern rifles were in an article that was titled with a Colt trademarked name. I believe one of the arguments would be putting content about harm caused by a lot of contaminated generic adhesive badges in the Band-Aid article since Band-Aid is often used as a genericized term. Thus the AR-15 article became the Colt AR-15(tm) article. Editors, rightly, wanted the general AR-15 pattern content to go somewhere so the MSR article was, in my opinion, narrowed to be about AR-15 pattern, semi-auto rifles. I think a good case could be made for creating a high level article AR-15 based rifles (not a good name) that would have topic trees starting with the Armalite design then branching out into the military and civilian variations and their derivates (that could include files that are based on the AR family but make critical design changes such as changing to an operating rod gas system. I would want this article to be largely free of content related to legality, morality, crimes, etc. I would want an article about those topics in some sort of generalized MSR article (with a different name). Since I don't know a great way to make all those changes and it was a fight to get even to where we are I haven't tried to make any of these changes. Springee (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The National Shooting Sports Foundation agrees that a "modern sporting rifle" such as the AR-15 style rifle is by definition going to be semi-automatic, because it is sold to civilians and is not a military weapon.[18] Quote: "AR-15-style rifles can look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but by law they function like other semiautomatic civilian sporting firearms, as they fire only one round with each pull of the trigger." This is one of the cites used in the article here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with NSSF's definition. The problem is editors objected to having what they felt was a euphemistic name and their concern had merit in my opinion. Do you have a suggestion as to how these related articles might be sorted? As I said, I would prefer a largely apolitical article covering the board range of rifles that basically trace back to the original Armalite design and a second article that deals with the subject of civilian ownership of rifles in this family as well other similar rifles not based on the AR pattern but with similar net operations (Mini-14, AK pattern designs). These articles would have to be linked since one of the objections a while back is that "after mass shooting using an AR style rifle traffic on the AR-15 article spikes thus we have to make the politics aspect front and center." Anything that is seen as trying to bury the politics won't fly. It makes for a hard to solve problem. Springee (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I note they also say AR-15 style rifle is (by definition) semi-auto. Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The lead sentence is us defining the scope of the article, not defining a term. We're not a dictionary. Personally I think this term is better than MSR, which is a little too euphemistic for my taste. VQuakr (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

If we want to properly define the scope of the article, the lead should clarify that a bit better than being phrased as a haphazard definition. Even the next sentence kinda contradicts the lead by saying it's based off the ArmaLite AR-15 while the lead cuts right to the Colt AR-15. Neither MSR, which is of course a political term (that isn't even used anymore really) or AR-15 style, which is something else, fits the article perfectly. It would need a brief explanation at least. I'd also like to point out that at the top of the ArmaLite article, the AR-15 style rifle is correctly called out as the "generic AR-15 firearm". Ironmatic1 (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's my two cents, select fire capability was included in the original Armalite AR-15 rifle, but this article refers to the AR-15 Style rifle, which itself refers to semi-automatic civilian rifles produced by a variety of manufacturers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.214.15 (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Mention of attack in article of guns used by perpetrator.

I am currently in dispute about this subject at Talk:O.F. Mossberg & Sons expecting your input and opinion. Notbrev (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

You've already asked the same question at Talk:Christchurch_mosque_shootings#Mention_of_attack_in_article_of_guns_used_by_perpetrator. This led to various replies at Talk:O.F. Mossberg & Sons, where the consensus is that saying "gun x was used in mass shooting y" has various problems such as WP:TOPIC and WP:RGW.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

How the gun works

Thoughts on adding or linking this somewhere on how the gun works ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omv85cLfmxU&feature=share Jackson883941 (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

YouTube videos are usually unsuitable as sources or external links; if people want to watch YouTube videos about a given subject, they can visit the site.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Specific wording

Yes, I know, this old chestnut. Rather than just editing the page -> refusing to elaborate -> leaving, I'd rather get some other peoples' thoughts on this.

For context, this is the paragraph I'm referencing:

Most firearm-related homicides in the United States involve handguns.[85][86][87] A 2019 Pew Research study found that 4% of US gun deaths were caused by semi-automatic rifles, a category which includes AR-15 style rifles.[88] According to a 2013 analysis by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 14 out of 93 mass shootings involved high-capacity magazines or assault weapons.[89] Nevertheless, AR-15 style rifles have played a prominent role in many high-profile mass shootings in the United States[90] and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.[91]

A lot of people seem to get hung up on the wording of the second half of the last sentence, "and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes." Though it seems to be correct - certainly throughout our culture the phrase "mass shooting" evokes imagery of a black-clad individual holding an AR-15 style rifle - the argument is that this makes it sound like these guns are responsible for a (much) larger share of homicide and/or mass shooting deaths.

However, simply appending some extra clarification to the end of the sentence seems a little biased, though, maybe not too much: "and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes[91], regardless of the actual prevalence."

I'm not entirely sure where to take it from here, hence the discussion, though I also could just be being pedantic.

Zeph.tech (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Weasle wording, we say "Most firearm-related homicides in the United States involve handguns" right at the start, we do not need to say the same thing (reworded) again. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree, this seems like adding unnecessary words. VQuakr (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, weasle wording. Prominent role is decided by what metric? How do we define "high profile", which doesn't always mean "the most articles", etc. It isn't adding information. If anything, it is slightly misleading. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

If a shooting is reported on the news here in Europe, you can safely say it is high profile, and it's usually some looney buying a bag of semi-automatic guns and shooting up a school or a market. Hope that helps. BP OMowe (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

California Compliant Section?

Any plan to add a section dedicated to the intense "Cali compliant" requirements like the removed folding stock, less than 10 round magazines, the grip being at a 135 degree angle, and countless brutal body mods that are being implemented on the AR series? Gun Nut perk (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggested sources? Thewellman (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

How about this article on Caligunner.com? There's more out there, but this is one of the better ones, I think. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a bit complicated, and the laws are continuing to evolve. But it looks like an AR-15 style rifle is legal in California if (1) it has a fixed magazine that holds ten rounds or fewer, *or* (2) it accepts a detachable magazine but does not have any of the banned features -- pistol grip; thumbhole stock; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; forward grip; barrel shroud; threaded barrel; grenade launcher; or rocket launcher. Option (2) is referred to as a "featureless rifle". (Related to all this, full-feature AR-15s registered with the state before 2005 are legal to possess. Also, the state passed a law banning the possession of detachable magazines that hold more than ten rounds, though that's under legal challenge.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 17:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect usage of the word Assault Rifle

Apparently AR, which vividly states in the 1st section of the article to stand for ArmaLite and not Assault Rifle.

Yet you incorrectly use it in the Comparison to military versions section?? Gun Nut perk (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Better yet, you guys refuse to change it just by removing the word Assault???? Gun Nut perk (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The "military assault rifles" referred to are the M16 and M4. It has absolutely nothing to do with "AR". BilCat (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Those are parts of the ArmaLite series. Not AR in assault rifles in general.

Having the wordlike Ar = Assault Rifle in a page about the company not the term, is just incorrect usage >:( Gun Nut perk (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It does not matter as WP:3RR applies to all Articles even AR-15 style rifle Chip3004 (talk) 05:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure if you are confused or not, but the wording is correct as-is... we are clarifying the difference between the AR-15 civilian models, and the M16 assault rifles, do not focus on the term "assault rifle" being used in an article about ArmaLite (style) rifles, and take it completely out of context of the sentence in which it is being used... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Gun Nut perk It doesn't even stand for armalite rifle, its just ARmalite. The AR17 is a shotgun, the AR24 is a 9mm pistol, the AR23 is a training device for the MK19 Full auto grenade launcher and the AR22 is a blank firing device for the MK19 KingOfRay (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

We're not stating or implying in any way that AR = Assault Rifle. If you take the time to read the sentence, you'll understand that it explains the difference between an AR-15 and an actual assault rifle. –dlthewave ☎ 05:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Is AR an abbreviation or an acronym?

Thread retitled from "What does AR stand for?".

The article says that "AR" is an acronym of "ArmaLite rifle". I was under the impression that it was an abbreviation of "ArmaLite". In fact, ArmaLite used this "AR" name for shotguns (AR-17), pistols (AR-24) and accessories. Is it correct to say "ArmaLite rifle" is actually a backronym? Does anyone have more information? Roll 3d6 (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

What do wp:rs say? Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Per sources in ArmaLite AR-15, Armalite rifle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

huh. I always assumed iy meant “assault rifle”. The more you know. Dronebogus (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

That's what some what you to think it means ;) AK-47 stands for Avtomat Kalashnikova 1947 (assault rifle (designed by) Kalashnikova in (19)47. Ammo used to be labeled that way, ie: a 30-06 was a .30 caliber bullet designed in 1906. An "assault rifle" is one that is either fully automatic or can operate with 3 round bursts, something no stock AR-15 can do. btw, the "15" part just means it was the 15th design by ArmaLite. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I've been searching for a while; for every source I find that says it stands for "ArmaLite", I can find ten more that say it stands for "ArmaLite rifle". It's true that almost all "AR" products are rifles, and while it's strange that a handgun was called AR-24, the convention does seem to be that the R stands for "rifle". In conclusion, that "AR" may or may not have stood for just "ArmaLite" at one point is likely not interesting or useful information for this article.

Also, I retitled this topic so that people won't think I was wondering if it stood for "assault rifle", as that seems to be a common misconception (almost all the sources I had found about the prefix were actually addressing this misconception in particular). I want to be clear that I didn't mean to discuss this misconception, or any related conspiracy theories, with this thread. Roll 3d6 (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

There are also AR-15 pistols, with much shorter barrels, and stocks, that look just like rifles. Looks are deceiving. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a tough one. NPR is clearly a reliable source, which is the standard, but I suspect that NPR is actually incorrect here as Armalite has produced a number of different weapons, including the aforementioned AR-24 pistol, two shotguns (the AR-9 and AR-17), and an aircraft multibarrel machine gun (AR-13) all under the "AR-" branding. Therefore, simple logic would indicate the 'R' is mostly likely the second letter of Armalite and not 'rifle', assuming it means anything at all. I guess we get to fall back to the "Verifiability, not Truth" standard in that unless we can find a better reliable source, even if NPR is incorrect, they are at least definitively incorrect. 73.254.89.77 (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to remove the assertion as to what it stands for entirely, and simply state (listing the citations already present) that it does not stand for Assault Rifle since all ArmaLite products including rifles, pistols, and shotguns have an AR-prefix code. — PhilHibbs | talk 21:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

How about this?

Current: Although Colt owns the AR-15 trademark, the "AR" in AR-15 stands for "ArmaLite Rifle", not "assault rifle".

Revised: Although Colt owns the AR-15 trademark, the "AR" in AR-15 refers to its original manufacturer, ArmaLite.

This avoids the issue and is consistent with the NPR source (""AR" comes from the name of the gun's original manufacturer, ArmaLite, Inc."). 73.254.89.77 (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I support the revision, since we avoid the confusion from differing sources but still get the main point across, i.e. that AR does not mean assault rifle. Sjö (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I added a wikilink to "assault rifle" in the current phrasing so people can see what the term means, and I would prefer to retain the mention that it does not refer to assault rifle since this is such a common misconception. Otherwise I agree with this revised phrasing. So something like: Although Colt currently owns the AR-15 trademark, the "AR" in AR-15 refers to its original manufacturer, ArmaLite, and not, as is sometimes thought, "assault rifle". —DIYeditor (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

If they had named it the " AL-15", we wouldn't have any confusion. Sigh. BilCat (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

This is what brought me to the talk page. Reading through the lede, this read smoothly, Although Colt owns the AR-15 trademark, the "AR" in AR-15 stands for "ArmaLite Rifle", not "assault rifle"; though it probably needs some revision. However, using The "AR" in AR-15 stands for "ArmaLite Rifle", not "assault rifle". to open the section Terminology is both redundant and comes off as a political edit. The refrain that "AR" doesn't stand for "assault riffle" is a political push-back against the AR-15's inclusion in the Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban, despite fitting the political Federal Assault Weapons Ban#Definition of assault weapon|Definition_of_assault_weapon]]. It's a talking point of the National Shooting Sports Foundation firearm trade association, which lobbies against similar assault weapons bans at the federal and state level. [19]

I'd suggest changing the sentence in the lede to Although Colt owns the AR-15 trademark, the "AR" in AR-15 refers to its original manufacturer, ArmaLite. The second reference in Terminology should be removed unless anyone has a primary source from ArmaLite marketing as to the AR backronym. Also, the reference Jeff Zimba (2014). The Evolution of the Black Rifle: 20 Years of Upgrades, Options, and Accessories. Prepper Press. p. 10. ISBN 978-0692317266 just isn't supportive of this talking point [20], remove it. Rfugal (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree. It sounds like we more or less have consensus. 73.254.89.77 (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm still back-and-forth on how and if to include the statement that AR is not an acronym for "assault riffle", but if it is it should be contextualized. Maybe something like,

Infantry rifle designer Eugene Stoner (an ArmaLite designer) gave the riffle the alphanumeric designation "AR-15" in 1957, the trademark which Colt Firearms bought from ArmaLite in 1959. [21] A common conception is that "AR" is an acronym for "assault riffle", perhaps because of the weapon's inclusion in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994 or because of the original design's intended use to replace the M14 rifle in the Vietnam War. [22] Like the National Shooting Sports Foundation which lobbies in the U.S. against firearm bans similar to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban at the federal and state level [4], this conception is said by some in the Gun rights movement to be a misconception—that "assault riffle" is a misnomer and "AR" simply means ArmaLite riffle. [23]

That would go in the Terminology section and the sentence in the lede would be removed. Re-reading that sentence (in the lede), if you remove the "not assault rifle" phrase it becomes redundant and not necessary. Rfugal (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Since the sources contradict each other, I think that we should go with "refers to its original manufacturer, ArmaLite" instead of choosing one or the other. I also think that the misconception is so frequent [24] that it should be mentioned both in the lede and in the terminology section. The lede is supposed to be "a summary of its most important contents" so it is not redundant to mention it twice in the article. Thirdly, the last sentence is problematic as it suggests that it is only part of the gun rights movement that say that AR does not mean "assault rifle". That is not correct, as the Snopes link and refs in assault weapon and assault rifle shows. Sjö (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I have found the authoritative source. Armalite says on their History page (section 1952-1954) "All rifles were designated AR, short for Armalite Rifle." I think that settles it.Sjö (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Hard to argue with that. Okay, I retract my previous suggestion and recommend adding this source to the line. Didn't expect this is where this would go, but I can't deny that that source is anything but definitive. 73.254.89.77 (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Added what I think captures the consensus to the article, including context on the misconception (citing Snopes) and the definitive source on AR acronym. Rfugal (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Roll 3d6 It doesn't even stand for armalite rifle, its just ARmalite. The AR17 is a shotgun, the AR24 is a 9mm pistol, the AR23 is a training device for the MK19 Full auto grenade launcher and the AR22 is a blank firing device for the MK19 KingOfRay (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

A continuing issue in this and other related articles is the mistaken belief that since "AR" means "ArmaLite", not "assault rifle", that there is therefore no such as an assault rifle. This is in spite of the well-referenced historical fact that the term is legitmate, and preceded the Armalite company by at least 10-15 years. I won't simply add such a statement to the article without a direct source that makes the connection, as doing it without one is synthesis. Yet it is a genuine issue. Has anyone seen a source that does address it? BilCat (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@BilCat The first weapon of this type was the Sturmgewehr 44. Which translates to Assault Rifle 44. KingOfRay (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's not a citeable source of itself. Furthermore, the "no such thing as an assault rifle" proponents often counter that "Sturmgewehr" means "stormrifle", which is a woodenly literal translation of the parts of the word. BilCat (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

popularity is partially attributable to active restrictions

I think the sentence is misleading and impartial - can be used as an argument to maintain the weapons available legally. 145.53.212.73 (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It is sources, and reflects what those souces are saying. Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

JR-15

Would the JR-15 be an AR-style unit, and thus could possibly be suitable for coverage on this article? [25][26][27][28] -- it's a .22LR and not a 5.56NATO -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be one. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it would be due for this article. 22LR conversion kits for AR rifles are not new. However, this doesn't appear to be a conversion kit so much as a relatively traditional direct blow back 22LR that is styled to look like an AR-15. As such I'm not sure if it would fit into this topic or not. It's probably already covered by the part of the topic that talks about other calibers. I don't think the controversy around this specific model is due here as this is a general topic article. Springee (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. After reading the operator's manual, this firearm looks and functions just like any other "AR-style rifle", being a different caliber does not change that. That being said, I do agree that "coverage"(?) here (besides maybe adding a sentence in the "Modularity and customization" section about "youth models being produced" and citing the manufacturer's website) would be WP:UNDUE. If it is/becomes notable enough for its own article (either from popularity or controversy), then I would support a link in the "Partial list of models" section here with the other notable models. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)