Talk:Mass shootings in the United States

Lankford report statistic

I made a change detailing that 292 *known* public mass shootings occurred across the world between 1966 and 2012. The statistic comes from research by Adam Lankford, who states in his paper, "This study will attempt to answer these questions and more, based on its quantitative analysis of all known public mass shooters who attacked anywhere on the globe from 1966 to 2012 and killed a minimum of four victims (N = 292)." Lankford himself uses the word "known". It is not certain that there were exactly 292 public mass shootings worldwide from 1966 to 2012, and Lankford acknowledges this.Elmerrutger (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Neutral point of view

@Waleswatcher: what policy do you believe supports your removal of reliable sourced content, that with its opposing view brought neutrality to article. -72bikers (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

What kind of "opposing view" was that supposed to represent? Why does it bring neutrality? As far as I see it does not represent an opposing view at all, rather describes at excessive length a specific theory about why mass shooters choose AR-15s, and then some completely irrelevant (to this article) information about police and military users.Waleswatcher (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Your views are yours to have. The content most definitely belongs here and balance the statements right before it. It offers a opposing view. I believe any attempt to deny this is a attempt to deny NPOV. The content is not written in stone and can be reworked but it can not be denied. -72bikers (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

An opposing view to what? Be specific, please. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I am more than happy to lend a hand and guide you to understand.72bikers (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Lets start with this, "In contrast to the rest of the world, where the perpetrator typically has only one gun, more than half of US mass shootings are committed with multiple weapons." Exactly what is the significance of this to the article? This statement would seem to imply that the US mass murders are some how more deadly. The fact that the US trails many European countries per capita with mass murders, let alone the rest of the world would refute this. If this content is to stay it should be balanced with this fact, I have sources to confirm.

This statement "While pistols are still the most prevalent weapons in US mass shootings, AR-15 style rifles have been used in six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in recent American history. and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes." This statement would also imply that the AR is some how a super superior deadly weapon, this needs to balanced with reliable relevant views as I had provided. -72bikers (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That statement implies nothing more than you read into it - it's just a statement of fact. If someone said "AR-15 rifles are the weapon of choice because they are the most deadly weapon available" or something, your comment would make some sense. But there is no statement in there like that. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Waleswatcher, we can mention the fact that something is popular even if the reason for its popularity is unknown, disputed or illogical. Like most purchasing decisions there are a number of factors that explain its popularity besides "deadliness". –dlthewave ☎ 01:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• First, 5 of the top 10 used an AR. The Pulse shooting was not an AR. Different operating system. Second, why are we focused on just the 10? If we expand this list merely to the top 15, the ratio drops markedly from 50% to 33% (6 of 18). This starts to look like the scope of the statement is being limited to make a point. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the expand, currently it looks a little cheery-picked. The article is about mass shootings not just one weapon. -72bikers (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The rifle used in Pulse has been described in several sources as an AR. I actually agree with you that's not exactly right, but the whole notion of "AR-15 style" is pretty much ill-defined. So if you want we can add a source disputing that, if there is one. As for six/ten, that's what the source picked, and "top ten" is completely standard and common. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Several sources call Justin Bieber a great singer, but it doesn't make it so. The WaPo even gave us this: [1] "While aesthetically similar to and just as lethal as an AR-15, the MCX is internally a different beast, thus all but removing it from the AR-15 family of rifles." They go on to quote someone who actually understands the firearm to say "otherwise has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form.” An uneducated reporter misusing the term doesn't mean it is correct. I even saw reports that the Santa Fe shooting involved an AR15....and then it turned out there was no rifle at all. Since you're in favor of a "top 10", I think we should revisit the discussion about expanding the scope of the table. That was never actually resolved. Again, 5 of 10, but still misleading. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you think is "misleading". There's lots of detailed information in the article about which weapons were used in which shootings. The fact is, a disproportionate fraction of the most deadly ones used ARs. Why that is is up for debate, but one plausible possibility is it's because ARs are better at killing lots of people than the other weapons shooters have used. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, AR's aren't better at killing. That's not the primary reason for choosing them in the first place for the military or for most shooters. To this day, we still haven't had a count of how many fatalities at Las Vegas were from AR15's. We just presume that the lion's share were without actual evidence. And when you say a "disproportionate fraction" used AR15's you are incorrect. 5 of 10 did. That's not disproportionate. 7 of 10 also used pistols. That's closer to disproportionate.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

If they aren't better at killing, why are they the weapon used in some many very deadly shootings? As for disproportionate, are you sure you know what that means? It quite clearly is disproportionate - most shootings with handguns outnumber those with ARs by a large factor, and yet 5 or 6/10 of the most deadly are with ARs. Or if you don't like the top ten way of counting, consider the average deaths from shootings involving ARs vs those not involving ARs (it will be higher with ARs), or any number of other stats.Waleswatcher (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you even understand the question you are asking? #3 on the list is a shooting event that used solely handguns, including a .22. One of the deadliest shootings using one of the most under-powered firearms around. There's a reason the US military is lobbying to go to heavier calibers. The answer is availability, not "deadliness". And yes, I know what disproportionate means, but I'm not sure you do. You're trying to mix uses without taking into account which firearms did what. And in many cases, you don't even know what firearm was used to what extent. You're simply guessing. And don't tell me to "find a source to the contrary", because you haven't produced a source that tells us how many fatalities at LV were from the AR15, but you're pretending like all of them were. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, it quite obviously is disproportionate, and you've said nothing that disputes that. In any case, plenty of reliable sources agree, which is what matters here. As for "you haven't produced a source that tells us how many fatalities at LV were from the AR15, but you're pretending like all of them were" - I've never said anything about that, actually. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I have disputed it, although you make that difficult when you keep changing what you claim is disproportionate. You are pretending like the LV fatalities were from AR15. Your latest edit was very POV, making a point rather than simply discussing the issue. Either talk about the AR15 or talk about "assault weapons", but don't mix your points about them. And you should discuss it here before trying to force in more of your point. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

We can discuss the accuracy of the 6/10 figure, but we certainly cannot change the article text to 5/10 unless it is supported by a source that says 5/10. Your edit was OR. The "AR-15 style rifle or other assault weapon" phrasing neatly sidesteps potential inaccuracy without adding OR. Reliable sources, not wiki editors, are the ones making all of these claims. –dlthewave ☎ 13:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The edit isn't OR. I'm tired of people who don't know what they're talking about claiming that anything they don't like is OR. I provided a source that the Pulse shooting doesn't involve an AR15. I could provide more. But somehow, you've decided that the Washington Post isn't reliable enough to say that it was not an AR15? 5 of 10. Prove otherwise. As for the tap dance about "or other assault weapons", A single reporter making a comparison of his own doesn't make it encyclopedic. Pretending that a random statement by a random reporter is now some gold standard isn't even close to the intent of DUE. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Niteshift36, my edit accurately summarized what was in that source. Do you dispute that? If not, on what basis did you revert it? If you feel that source does not accurately represent the mainstream view, what exactly do you think the mainstream view is, and what are your sources for it? Waleswatcher (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You're taking a single source that is trying to make a single point and calling it encyclopedic. Are you going to talk about AW's, AR15's or just any random stat someone spews? Pick a lane and get in it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Good, so you don't dispute it's an accurate summary of the source. You also haven't provided any sources (or arguments or anything else) showing it's not representative of the mainstream view (and I'm happy to add more sources to that one, if you think it's necessary). If you think there are other (non-mainstream) views that should be represented, you can always add them. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Everything with you is proving a negative. You expect a perfectly worded refutation of some random stuff a reporter said. That's not how this works. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The reporter states "But in all of the latest incidents — Newtown, Conn., in 2012; San Bernardino, Calif., in 2015; Orlando, Fla., in 2016; Las Vegas, 2017; Sutherland Springs, Texas, 2017 — the attackers primarily used AR-15 semiautomatic rifles." That is factually incorrect. The Washington Post [2], Business Insider [3], CNBC [4] and Tampa Bay Times[5] contradict this incorrect assertion. First you started this about the AR15, then you tried skirting your source being incorrect by saying "assault weapons". This really looks more like you trying to make a point than anything else. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• The LA Times source has been shown to be refuted by numerous RS's. It does not make the statement "AR-15 or similar semi-automatic rifle". It says AR15. Stop. We don't get to alter what the source says simply because we want to use it and we have to fix the fact that the the author is simply wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion Notice

A discussion regarding this article has been opened at the No original research Noticeboard. –dlthewave ☎ 21:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Too bad you wasted everyone's time by going there with only half the story. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hazen quote

A recent edit added the following quote:

Quoted expert Dean Hazen said, "the reason mass shooters are turning to the AR-15 is due to a "copy-cat" mentality more than any feature of the rifle, it has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity." Perhaps they choose the AR-15 based on the rep it has received from other shootings or it is the "weapon of choice" for police. But the police "choose it because it is under-powered...", "making it less likely to penetrate interior walls and hit an unintended target." Pete Blair, executive director of Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center -- which studies mass murder-- echoed Hazen's comments.

References

Only the parts which I've put in bold are directly attributable to Hazen; the rest simply quotes the source's paraphrasing of Hazen's comments. The paragraph should be rephrased to reflect this but I wanted to discuss it here first. Additionally, the first two USAToday sources are nearly identical and one of them should be removed. –dlthewave ☎ 22:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC) Pinging 72bikers who wrote the paragraph.

• Agree a rewrite is needed that includes the material later added by Waleswatcher. Both sets of new material aren't summaries of their sources rather just quotes taken from the source. The "balance" material added by WW has issues in that it includes quotes but doesn't attribute them. It doesn't have a lead in to tell the user who is making the claim or why they are reliable. As an aside, the 6 of 10 claim isn't accurate and either needs to be addressed via some type of notation that the source incorrectly attributes one of the shootings to an "AR-15" or it should be removed as an inaccurate claim. It should not stand as it's provably incorrect based on other RSs. Springee (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Re 6/10, it's unclear if it's correct or not. Multiple sources make that claim, including one of the ones brought up to refute it (which says "all but removes it from the AR-15 family...", that is, it's in that family). The real issue is what exactly an AR-15 style rifle is. The best way to deal with this is probably to replace "AR-15" with "AR-15 or similar semi-automatic rifle" or something. Waleswatcher (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The LA Times article is wrong. Yes, the guns are similar in operation just as a Ford and Chevy pickup are similar in operation. That doesn't mean they are the same nor that we can include Chevy trucks when we say "Ford pickup". I'm OK with your "AR-15 or similar..." modification so long as we include a footnote explaining why that language was included. Springee (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I would not agree with ""AR-15 or similar semi-automatic rifle". If you're going to single out AR15's, then talk about AR15's. If you're going to talk about semi-auto rifles, then talk about them. But don't mix the two so that you can make 2 separate statements to make the issue sound different. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I have addressed issues raised. I don't see how WW edit such as this "They are also "very customizable — most average people can figure out how to install accessories like forward trigger grips that let you hold the gun at waist height and spray bullets while stabilizing the gun, laser sights," is relevant to the article. It is not a gun article and the experts have stated that the killers are not doing this to there guns. Claiming the lack of this is proof these killers have little knowledge of guns. This content that is repeated "They carry high-capacity magazines," also seems out of place. As well as other issues. -72bikers (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You don't think features like that - which very likely are important for why mass shooters choose it - are relevant to this article, but you consider information about how the police think about its wall-penetrating properties to be relevant? I'm sorry, but that just makes no sense at all. Waleswatcher (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Who is making the claim, are they qualified to make the claim and why is it presented in Wiki voice vs as an attributed claim. For example the claim you added includes a statement about "forward trigger grips". What the hell are "forward trigger grips"? I've heard of vertical forward grips but none with integrated triggers. Beyond the "trigger" part, the description of what a forward vertical grip is good for is wrong (for that matter the reason why a vertical rear grip is useful is also not for firing from the hip). Since these are claims of functionality they should be supportable by firearms experts. Springee (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

A press release, written by an anonymous person from an activist group that has every reason in the world to frame their statement in the most horrible sounding way possible.... or an actual expert on the topic? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a group that specializes in gun violence, versus an expert in the guns themselves. The former is more expert than the latter for an article on mass shootings. Anyway, we don't have to choose one or the other, we can include both or alternate sources, there is certainly no lack. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

No, they are an advocacy group. It's no more reasonable to quote them in wikivoice than it would be to quote the NRA. Springee (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, except that the NRA actually understands the firearms. The Brady org may claim to "specialize in gun violence", but not so much about guns. That's why they use nonsense terms like "forward trigger grips", which don't even exist. Or talk about "laser sights" as a reason to choose, while ignoring the fact that lasers can be put on everything from .22 revolvers to bolt action .50 rifles. They simply don't know what they're talking about and it doesn't matter to them if they do. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal for a re-write of the section? Waleswatcher (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I would propose removing the limited and questionable information you added. Sorry, I don't think anything can be done to save it nor do I think it adds value to the article. It's not even a contrary POV to the 72bikers' material. Why AR-15's are picked shouldn't have contrary points of view. It should simply have summaries of what experts think. As for 72biker's material, I would suggest putting it in a more summary form, perhaps dropping the direct quotes since I think we can reliably summarize. I would also try to find at least one more expert. That would bring the total to three. Springee (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, Niteshift removed some, which is OK with me (I left that quote out, and just added "highly customizable", which is indisputable I think). Waleswatcher (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the updated "AR-15 or ..." edit from earlier today needs a footnote to indicate the source incorrectly says 6 AR-15 style rifles. The MCX is not an AR-15 any more than an AK-74 modified to use STANAG magazines and 5.56 ammo would be. Since this is an encyclopedia we should endeavor to be technically correct. Niteshift36 removed part of the USA Today sourced material [[6]]. I would also remove this sentence or rework this one as well, " They carry high-capacity magazines, a feature that "makes them attractive to people looking to commit mass murder", and are accurate, lightweight, and have low recoil." That is a claim that needs to be attributed. We shouldn't make such a claim in Wiki voice. There is no reason why that claim would be assumed correct but the claims following it need to be attributed. Springee (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding a footnote regarding Orlando and the MCX, even though I don't think it's really necessary with the current phrasing. For the high-capacity magazine etc, I don't mind looking for yet another source. Before I do that though, can you point me to the wiki policy that explains under what circumstances such quotes need to be attributed to an expert individual, rather than to a journalist? Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I think if you remove the LA Times article it would address the sourcing concern. At this time I don't want to weigh in on the NPOV/WEIGHT issue. It's not clear why this particular stat is needed vs just wanted in the article. Regardless, the problem with retaining the LA Times sources is, as is, the source contains a significant factual error related to the claim it's being used to support. It doesn't say "AR-15/semi-auto rifle", it only says AR-15. The other source also has an error in that it says AR-15 or semiautomatic but doesn't stipulate rifle. Well, many of the other mass shootings have used semi-auto pistols. I understand that isn't what they mean and the wiki text does keep that clear. Springee (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

June 11 edits

This edit adding a claim about the use of high capacity magazines should be reviewed [[7]]. The problem with such a claim is that "high capacity" magazines are often standard capacity for typical guns. The definition of "high capacity" is typically 10 rounds. Many common pistols including most Glocks carried by police officers have magazines that carry more than 10 rounds (12-15 are common). This issue has been discussed by sources that noted the alarmist nature of claims such as the one added above.

As a side note, I noticed the "Weapon of choice" statement includes a citation to the Brady Campaign. That one should probably be removed as the Brady Campaign is not a reliable source any more than we would consider the NRA a reliable source. There are enough other sources that I don't think this removal would cause any issues. Springee (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

There are lots of sources regarding the use of high-capacity magazines in mass shootings. From what I've seen the definition is usually "more than 10 rounds", not 10 rounds or more. Whether or not that is "alarmist" depends entirely on your perspective, but it is factual, well-sourced, and notable (there is extensive coverage and it's frequently discussed in the context of possible bans in response to mass shootings).

Regarding the Brady campaign reference, I object to removing it and I do not agree it is not a reliable source in this context (see e.g. WP:BIASED). Waleswatcher (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You are correct, I meant to say more than 10 as 10 is typically the cut off. However, we should make it clear that many of the "high capacity" magazines are simply the standard magazine that comes with the gun. There are a number of articles that make that point. As for the Brady Campaign's reliability, remember as an advocacy group that tries to drive the conversation on gun control they are not independent, 3rd party players. They aren't an independent source. They certainly are biased. You might agree with their bias but they aren't neutral with regards to this subject. You can't reasonably argue they are any more neutral than the NRA or other gun rights groups. Springee (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't object to including more information on magazine sizes. As for Brady, I suggest you take a look at WP:BIASED. I haven't said anything about the NRA or whether I agree with anyone's bias. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

As for Brady see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources Springee (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I looked at it, thanks. Why is it relevant? Waleswatcher (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not a reliable impartial source -72bikers (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

References

"Unbiased" is not a requirement for a reliable source (on the contrary, in fact), per WP:BIASED. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Unbiased is always good per WP:NPOV, "Articles must not take sides". Using highly biased sources is a NPOV issue. The Brady Campaign is material is also self published so per WP:RS we shouldn't use it for controversial claims. Since we already have other sources making the claim we don't change the article with this removal. Springee (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That is not wiki policy. The policy actually states 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. So, on what grounds are you edit warring to remove this source? What is your justification? "The source is biased" isn't a justification (especially when it agrees with many other sources, as you yourself admitted). Waleswatcher (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a direct quote from the summary. The grounds for removal are described above. "The source is biased" isn't the justification so please stop pretending that was the reason. Springee (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

If "the source is biased" isn't the justification, why did you just say " Using highly biased sources is a NPOV issue"? It's not an issue, it's actually sometimes necessary. As for self-published, a press release by an organization is not "self-published" per wiki. So, you have not presented any valid grounds for removal of this source. Waleswatcher (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's the policy of self-published sources: Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[8] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. Nothing in that applies to a press release by an organization. Waleswatcher (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

2018 (UTC)

If you are going to edit war at least you should know why the other person is removing the material. It's being removed as unreliable per WP:RS. It's a self published source making a controversial claim. Before you claim it's not controversial, if it wasn't controversial why would we need so many sources to back the statement? The Brady Campaign is an advocacy group, not a subject matter expert. Please stop falsely claiming it was removed as "biased". Springee (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not self-published, as you can see in the quote above. So that claim is out the window. It's not clear it's biased, but even if it is that's not a valid reason. So that's out the window. So what precisely in WP:RS are you referring to? Waleswatcher (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This really isn't controversial. Who is making the claim? A Brady spokesperson. Where is the claim being published? The Brady Campaign website. That is pretty much the definition of self published. Now lets go a step further. The self published section you quoted is meant to provide an example of what is considered self published. It doesn't say "these are the only things that are considered self published". Furthermore, consider this section WP:QS, "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[9] " So does Brady have an independent, reliable editorial board? Would the fact that they advocate against types of firearms suggest they might have a conflict of interest when offering opinions on the subject (ie they won't be neutral but instead will offer opinions that support their POV). I would also suggest looking at [[8]]. "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." No remember we are trying to support a controversial opinion/claim. That means we should be careful about using lower quality sources or sources that may have bias and thus their opinion regarding the question at hand wouldn't be considered reliable. That's what we have here. This should be self evident. Springee (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Press releases are explicitly defined as self-published sources per our policy at WP:SPS. If you disagree, pursue changing the policy. VQuakr (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link. These changes were noted in edit summaries as "ce", but they do not look like copyediting to me. I would be happy to discuss further. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: re this recent change [9], does the source specify how much lower the "rate of potentially survivable injuries" was? --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Verified that the paper does not use the term much. To be honest, if one reads the paper it become clear that the source is being misused in this Wiki entry. The primary objective of the paper was to discuss the differences between combat and mass shooting wounds. It's very questionable to use the source to make the point that the sock editor has taken from the article. Here is a useful read relating to the article in question [[10]]. I would challenge the use of the article for the claim it's being used to make in the article. I will add a verification tag while waiting for others to show that the article supports the claim. Springee (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Springee: @K.e.coffman: I read the article. There were zero potentially survivable gunshot wounds from rifles, while 24 handgun and shotgun wounds were potentially survivable. That seems to support the statement that Springee removed. Springee, care to explain why you disagree? Waleswatcher (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Other editors have read the content as well.

"before 1999 not accessible were from the period of 2000 through 2013."

"First, it is a "retrospective" (Prospective studies usually have fewer potential sources of bias and confounding than retrospective studies-For this reason, retrospective investigations are often criticised) review with all of the shortcomings inherent in this study design. Second, we lacked detailed autopsy results in some cases, and it is possible that we erroneously categorized some cases as non-survivable"

"Finally, although we attempted to review as many of the autopsy reports as possible, local laws, limited public information, and/or lack of response to FOIA requests prevented us from receiving reports from many events, thereby creating additional possibility of sampling bias. This may be compounded by the fact we limited analysis to events with 4 or greater fatalities. Although we attempted to contact as many coroners/medical examiners as possible, it took over two years to collect the information in this study. We did not feel that delaying the publication of these results in an attempt to contact the remaining coroners/examiners was justified given our findings. We strongly recommend that medical societies lobby law-makers to allow better access to and more complete reviews of outcomes following shooting events."

This can not be held to a high standard of accuracy as you are trying to use it. This report was created simple for medical personnel on how to treat victims and enhance survivability of active shooter events. Further it is questionable as to it being reliable or notable for use in this section of the article. -72bikers (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

All sources have limitations. No one is holding this to an especially high standard of accuracy. The justification for Springee's removal was that the claim in the text wasn't supported by the source, but it seems it is. 72bikers wrote "The source does not mention any specific firearm nor any firearm stats", which is false. I'm going to add the info back for now.Waleswatcher (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Your comment seems to be making excuses for using the source in a way it was not intended and for its own acknowledgment of its inaccuracies. You are futher mistaken it does not "state specific firearms" just generalized comments. Also what is the notability of mentioning common knowledge of a rifle is more powerful at close range than the "average" handgun. There are handguns at close range that are actually more powerful than some rifles high velocity or not.

"First, it is a "retrospective" (Prospective studies usually have fewer potential sources of bias and confounding"

"thereby creating additional possibility of sampling bias."

"This may be compounded by the fact we limited analysis to events with 4 or greater fatalities."

"and it is possible that we erroneously categorized some cases as non-survivable"

Also please stop your edit warning as it is becoming disruptive. -72bikers (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

72bikers, please stop using misleading edit summaries (like "restored content" when you in fact removed content). Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• WW, the word "much" is editorializing on your part. It doesn't appear in the article. The way the journal article is being used to create the claim in the Wikipedia article is already very questionable. Can you show where the journal authors actually make the claim that we have in the Wiki article? That is why I added the verification needed tag which you improperly removed. Springee (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Springee, I don't think it's "editorializing", it's summarizing. But ok, would you object to a more detailed statement? In the article they find zero survivable rifle shot woulds, and 24 (I think, will have to double check the exact number) survivable handgun and shotgun wounds. So, what about a sentence giving those numbers? Waleswatcher (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

As already stated the source was not intended to be used this way and openly acknowledges its inaccuracies.

"First, it is a "retrospective" (Prospective studies usually have fewer potential sources of bias and confounding"

"thereby creating additional possibility of sampling bias."

"This may be compounded by the fact we limited analysis to events with 4 or greater fatalities."

"and it is possible that we erroneously categorized some cases as non-survivable"

Also you seem to still be still edit warning. Your behavior is clearly read as disruptive in what you are now doing.-72bikers (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

WW, the "much" is absolutely editorializing because you are adding a subjective adverb that was not used by the original authors. That brings up a second issue with this whole mess. The content was added by a sock who was notorious for distorting sources to fit the sock's intended meaning. As the sock added the information it appears that the article was concluding that rifles are more deadly than handguns and shotguns by some ratio. However, no where in the article do the authors try to draw that conclusion. Instead the purpose of the article is to discuss the difference between combat type wounds and those seen in mass shootings. The sock likely saw the free summary of the article and quoted it because an academic article sounds authoritative. Said editor tried to pull similar BS in an automotive article. Regardless of the sock's intent, the sock was engaging in OR to portray the article as a paper that included research on the relative lethality of various types of guns. That wasn't something the authors were trying to do and the authors don't claim their data could be used as the sock used it. Springee (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

That a sock may have added something like this at some point in the past is totally irrelevant. What matters now is the content - does it improve the article, or not? I think there needs to be some information on why semi-auto rifles are so prominent in these shootings. An obvious possibility with a lot of evidence behind it is that they are more lethal than handguns or shotguns, and so more people get killed in shootings where they are used. There are lots of sources that can attest to that, so I'll look for another one (and maybe use this one as an alternate). Waleswatcher (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the content does matter. The fact that the content added to the Wiki article is not supported by the source matters quite a bit. That is why it was removed. As for why the rifles are prominent that is two fold. One is media coverage helps define what is prominent. I know you have been unhappy with 72biker's sources but so far they are the best sources we have for addressing the issue you are raising. Springee (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

Springee, please stop reverting all content added to this article. You do not WP:OWN it.Waleswatcher (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC) To expand a little: the statement is not "subjective", there is plenty of evidence (just look at the list of shootings in this article!). More importantly, that view is very wide-spread and I'm perfectly happy to add many more sources if you think they are needed. Because it is a wide-spread view, we must include it per NPOV (especially since we have a contrary view given lots of weight, as it stands the section is completely unbalanced). I've noticed you keep removing any material in this direction, which is starting to look more and more like WP:OWN and a pattern of tendentious editing. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC) You do realize this WP:OWN could be said of you. As well as "I've noticed you keep removing any material in this direction, which is starting to look more and more like WP:OWN and a pattern of tendentious editing." You do realize this is also not a gun article and you seem to be placing a lot of weight on just one aspect of just one weapons used part of the time in this crime. You have numerously stated that any content that does not share your views must be countered with significantly more content that supports your views. As far as sources you seem to be talking of WP:OVERKILL and WP:REFBOMB "One cause of "citation overkill" is edit warring, which can lead to examples like "Garphism is the study[1][2][3][4][5] of ...", as an editor desperately tries to shore up one's point and/or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that their opponents will accept that there are reliable sources for their edit. With all of the aspersions being cast this is all of topic. -72bikers (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly how does any of this overly detailed opinion have relevance or notability to the article? "Indeed, the AR-15 is more an open-source platform than a single weapon. For instance, the Sig Sauer MCX used in the Orlando nightclub shooting more closely resembles an AK-47 in some respects, but an AR lower receiver can be "upgraded" to a Sig MCX." -72bikers (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Removed content that was both non-neutral (appeal to emotion rather than factual) and cited to a non-notable opinion. The trauma surgeon may be an expert in wound care but not in firearms nor the motives of mass shooters. At the same time the doctor isn't otherwise a noted opinion. Springee (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Section break

Restored the blanked content [[11]]. I think the restored paragraph should be reduced to perhaps 2 sentences and combined with the paragraph above. This may be a good place to use embedded quotes to reduce the text length. The restored material isn't optimal but blanking isn't the way to fix it. Springee (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I have trimmed and combined with the paragraph above as suggested. -72bikers (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher:, this is a less than honest edit summary [[12]]. If you are just moving material fine. Do not remove content and then claim you just moved material in the article. Springee (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

What removed content are you referring to? Waleswatcher (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

WW you also keep placing overly detailed content on AR-15's (this is not a gun article) when they are not even the dominant weapon used, giving undue weight. -72bikers (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

They are the dominant weapon in the most deadly mass shootings, including essentially all of the recent ones. There's a reason for that and there are masses of articles about it, so an article on American mass shootings must cover it. I have no objection to also including other RSs that go into detail regarding weapons used. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

They have only been used 14 times in mass shootings over the last 35 years. AR's are covered in the article and this is not a gun article to go into overly specific details. So your placing undue weight on AR's and offer to stop removing RS on topic content in exchange for the inclusion of you overly detailed description. I don't know how you are not aware of this but that is not how Wiki works. -72bikers (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion (and mine) is not relevant. We had - what was it? seven? - reliable sources calling the AR-15 the "weapon of choice" for mass shooters, before they were trimmed. There are many more. Not covering that extremely prevalent view thoroughly in this article violates NPOV. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

How can you state this "Your opinion (and mine) is not relevant" then go on to state because of some articles in a then current news cycle (which is mentioned) you feel should be given the most attention. In the last 3 years they have only been used 4 times. What should be covered is the actual facts (this is a encyclopedia) they actually play a marginal role. -72bikers (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

They certainly do not play "a marginal role". They have been used in most of the 10 most deadly shootings in US history, and all the most recent ones. You can try to twist the facts however you like, but what is wiki policy is representing the mainstream point of view, and it's very clear what that is. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

WW, I explained why I'm opposed to the material you added several days back (Aug 19). You have yet to say why you think your material doesn't violate impartial tone [[13]] nor why the opinion has weight in this article. Currently there isn't consensus for inclusion and you are simply edit warring. Springee (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess you are referring to this? "Removed content that was both non-neutral (appeal to emotion rather than factual) and cited to a non-notable opinion. The trauma surgeon may be an expert in wound care but not in firearms nor the motives of mass shooters. At the same time the doctor isn't otherwise a noted opinion. Springee (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)"

"The doctor" is a retired Navy officer and the surgeon who operated on Gabby Giffords. He's quoted in a reliable source. His quote has nothing to do with the motives of mass shooters, it has to do with the firearm, which he quite clearly is an expert on from two different angles (medical and as a military officer). Furthermore you removed much more text than just the quote from him. Can I assume you have no objection to the rest? Waleswatcher (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You have been shown the actual facts, you are attempting to place content that "you" feel is the most relevant. Based on what appears to be the then current news cycles with over-dramatized headlines, and this is covered in the article. Fox talks of this and how the media filters the facts to best suit there views. There has been only one use this year and only 4 in the last 3 years. There is no more coverage of this weapon in the new since earlier this year. Further this is not a gun article and there is no need for overly detailed descriptions.

This "it has to do with the firearm, which he quite clearly is an expert on from two different angles (medical and as a military officer)" is incorrect. He is not a expert on firearms and no source or job description supports that. This has already been sorted. He did not carry a AR nor do any of our enemies. -72bikers (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't make the case that his opinion carries weight for inclusion here. Furthermore, per NPOV-Impartial Tone, we should present the information in an impartial tone. Phrases like "killing machine" are not impartial. You also haven't shown that he is an expert in firearms. Springee (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

So you have no objection except to that quote? Waleswatcher (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You clearly see that is not the only objection. -72bikers (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

While "killing machine" is emotionally laden, it does describe the function of firearms accurately. The main question is what was any given firearm designed to kill and in what circumstances. However, that's neither here nor there. If a source is reliable and the reference is in the voice of the source, the source doesn't need to be neutral. Could somebody please link to the sources being disputed here? Simonm223 (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

No, per NPOV we should convey the information in an impartial tone. That means don't use emotion laden quotes even if we might otherwise say the source in reliable. A better question is what value does that quote provide to the reader? The "weapon of choice" claim was emotion laden and arguably doesn't provide value to the reader but a strong case was made that it was widely stated. We don't have that here. It's not clear that the person being quoted in notable enough to actually deserve a direct quote in the article at all. The person is not an expert in mass shootings nor firearms. Their medical opinion is notable as a clearly experienced surgeon but why take the article in the direction of an appeal to emotions? Springee (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, this is about the weapon of choice quote? I disagree with you on that then. The weapon of choice quote is fine as long as we don't put it in Wikipedia's voice. If the source is an RS, they're an RS. Selectively deciding they're reliable for what you want but not for what you don't want is not on. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223:, the source is this. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Pinging again as I messed up the first one. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding NPOV and "emotionally laden", Simonm223 is correct. Springee, you seem to be under the misapprehension that NPOV means you cannot quote sources with strong or biased opinions. That is exactly wrong. NPOV means you must present such views, just in proportion to their weight. Such disputes sometimes can be presented in a neutral wikivoice, but given how controversial this article is, attributed quotes are probably a better choice here. Given that a very large group of RSs regard the AR-15 as the "weapon of choice" and an extremely deadly weapon proven capable of killing masses of civilians, we must report that view here or we are violating NPOV, and a quote like the one from Rhee is a reasonable means of doing so. That is particularly true because you and other editors have insisted on including quotes from a minority that argues that the AR-15 is not especially lethal. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

No WW, you are incorrect. The widely characterized comment was discussed on the AR-15 article. I don't agree with it here anymore than there but it was extensively discussed. The "perfect killing machine" is an opinion quote from a single source and one that hasn't been established as reliable in that context. Furthermore, NPOV says we should use an impartial tone. Can you explain how that quote is impartial? Springee (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Obviously we shouldn't use that quote in Wikipedia's voice; but I'd say that a trauma surgeon with extensive military experience cited in a high-quality long-format journalistic source as an expert constitutes a reliable source to use a statement in their voice. This is not a violation of WP:NPOV as long as it is characterized as a quote from an expert. If you can find another expert with a contradicting view I would support the inclusion of both, but I don't see you have any policy driven grounds for exclusion here beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT Simonm223 (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: The NY Times source was discussed at RSN. Note that the "proposed text" quote box appears a few lines down in the archive. –dlthewave ☎ 15:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

A non-admin closure that probably should have said "no consensus" isn't a particularly compelling argument. And I think it's using a rather overly broad interpretation of what can be sourced to WP:MEDPOP Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you, I just thought you should be aware of the recent discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 18:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Rhee is a prominent surgeon who operates on gunshot victims, a retired military officer, and quoted in a reliable source on AR-15s and gun violence. That settles the question of his expertise. Further, wiki policy supports quoting "biased" opinions so long as all sides are presented. In this article, only a minority view is presented, those claiming AR-15s are not particularly lethal. That violates NPOV. So unless there are policy-based objections, I think we should restore the Rhee quote (that AR-15s are "perfect killing machines"). If necessary, I expect I can find many more RSs expressing similar sentiments. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

You have not show that Rhee is a reliable source for the opinion that the AR-15 is a "perfect killing machine". Beyond that what was being quoted? Even if the Dr was RS for such a claim, since that isn't a widely used claim it would be UNDUE here. Inclusion is an issue with impartial tone. We don't need to balance such a claim because it's not encyclopedic. However, 72bikers has provided sources that would dispute the claim (see the back and forth at the AR-15 article). But let's be honest about what the claims are and the function they serve in the source articles. They are emotional hooks. They aren't factual, data driven assessments. The create an emotional response in the readers and that is why they are included. Per NPOV we should be careful to avoid such appeals to emotion. There is a case for inclusion, as in the AR-15 article, "widely characterized as the weapon of choice". However, this is one Dr's opinion and not in an area where the Dr has been shown to be an expert (ie, is it really a better killing machine vs some other less common firearm or non-firearm). I think the AR-15 material should be in this article based on media coverage but that should be limited when we start talking about perception. The facts regarding usage etc should be included in a data driven fashion. In general it would be better if we avoided the sort of compare and contrast (X says these are really bad. Y says they aren't really bad) and tried to make it more like (usage rate in mass shootings is X). I would also ask everyone to please stop changing the article so much. If we have to revert, go back to say end of July when things were a bit more stable and then lets agree what changes should be made. Springee (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop being disruptive. Overly detailed content on one gun is not appropriate, this is not a gun article and it has a minority use. The word many is not appropriate, 13 uses in the last 35 years and only 4 uses in the last 3 years is not a large number. The RS content has nothing to do with the inclusion of a quote from a doctor stating his perceived lethality.

Also he is not a expert on the AR-15, he most likely never even carried it nor do any of our enemies. His "opinion" is only stated once in one article, for such a substantial claim it would need further support from experts. As to the doctors claim, as pointed out this has already been fleshed out.

Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space.

Also an article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. -72bikers (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Reminder to 72bikers that it's not appropriate to characterize the argument of an editor who disagrees with your edits disruptive, as for the "views of tiny minorities," this of course begs the question of just how tiny that minority is. That said, WP:NOTE and WP:RS would suggest that it is very much appropriate to show the notable minority view of an issue, as long as it is appropriately contextualized as being the view of that notable person and given appropriatedue weight. It shouldn't be in Wikipedia's voice. But that doesn't mean we leave it out. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Next break

@Simonm223:, @72bikers:, lots of back and forth there. 72bikers, I think Simonm223 sounds generally open to some of your changes but is worried about the prose of the text. I understand the concern. Why not take a bit to recompose the new material and copy the paragraphs below. That will allow us to agree on the text while not flipping the article back and forth. It also assures that no one has to worry about 3RR. I would suggest using the differences in this edit as the starting point (ie in the end we want the content (in general) that was removed but not the prose) [[14]] Springee (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

That's precisely what I'm looking for here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea, and thanks for being constructive Springee. There are two separate issues here. One is the inclusion of the Dr. Rhee quote, and more broadly, inclusion of some material regarding the (quite evident) lethality of the AR-15. Some such material is required by NPOV if we're going to keep the Hazen+ quotes, but it doesn't have to be the quote by Rhee. The other issue are the edits that 72bikers keeps inserting, which are ungrammatical, poorly organized, make editorial statements in wikivoice, and are generally not suitable. That's not to say some of the material cannot be included, but just that the edits as they are just don't pass the basic cut. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I should note that, as per my most recent revert, I have serious concerns about the WP:NPOV position of 72bikers' most recent edit. We've talked a lot on this page and on the AR-15 talk page about the use of Wikipedia voice with regards to point of view. To include, in Wikipedia voice, "But it's a very common misconception..." seems to be in complete contravention of that rather thorough discussion. That being said, I don't think it's a surprise that I prefer major edits to contentious articles to be work-shopped at talk before being taken live. Hell, I've cleaved to that view even on less contentious articles like Science Fiction. Simonm223 (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Well we are getting somewhere. I think we need to sort out the balance issue that is being discussed. I don't have time to do it now but perhaps tonight I can give it a go. I'm against the Rhee quote specifically because it is an emotional, non-impartial quote and isn't a widely used claim like "king of pop" might be for say Michael Jackson. I also agree that we should not have weasel words/phrases like "But it's a very common misconception..." Such phrases could only be used as attributed quotes and even then we should ask if they are really needed. If we are going to say something is a misconception then it opens the door to also posting the voices that say that thing. Since this isn't an AR-15 article it may be better to trim much of this down to just say "A study of mass shooting crimes shows X weapon type is used Y% of the time (repeat as needed)." Some mention of "AR-15 and similar are said to play an over sized role [sources with in citation quotes as needed] but not all researchers agree [source with in citation quotes as needed]. The nice thing about keeping the emotive content out of the article is it makes it harder for us to argue. Once we have that done we can talk about how much nicer the weather is in Scotland vs Wales. Springee (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I like where you're going with this. And yes, it can wait for a few hours. Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

WW reported 72biker for edit warring. It's regrettable that WW used this as an oportunity to remove an editor for 72 hours rather than at least give 72bikers a chance to self revert in case it was an accidental 4RR. As such we will have to wait at least 72 hours to get 72biker's buy in. I'm going to ask that we leave the article alone in the mean time. I'm not going to edit it one way or the other until we get some consensus here. Springee (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't "use it", I reported a user who blatantly violated the 3RR after a warning. You're accusing me of bad faith and WP:HOUNDing me. I advise you to stop and read WP:AOBF. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Working text for the Weapons Used section

Weapons use Firearms used in mass shootings in the United States, including rifles, handguns, and shotguns. A 2014 study of 142 shootings by Dr. James Fox found 88 (62%) were committed with handguns of all types (68 (48%) with semi-automatic handguns, 20 (14%) with revolvers), 35 (25%) with military style semi-automatic rifles, and 19 (13%) with shotguns. The study was conducted using the Mother Jones database of mass shootings from 1982-2018. High capacity magazines were used in approximately half of mass shootings. Military style, semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 or similar have been used in six of the ten deadliest mass shooting events. AR-15 rifles have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes.

• The above represents a reduced version of the current article text. I stuck with largely the material in the first paragraph but tried to present the facts with a neutral tone. I'm not sure about the value of the last sentence to the reader and the headaches that it will/has already caused. I think some of 72biker's material might fit here but I don't think we do readers any favors by making this an article that overly emphasizes either the semi-auto rifle or high capacity magazine controversies. For this reason I didn't try to find some of the references that note that "high capacity" magazines are often the default type included with firearms and articles that question if magazine size limits would have an impact on fatalities. I figured I would sidestep the fights by keeping the material brief. Springee (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to make a change without group input but I would like group input :) Springee (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support I think this revision is probably as good as we're going to get with the material we have. Simonm223 (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, but the last sentence in that paragraph is not factually correct. This could be addressed here and now or separately, I don't want to muddy the waters in Springee's suggested change. But "AR-15 rifles have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes." this is only voiced by journalists. With the data from the studies and experts clearly stating weapon of choice is handguns, by a margin of almost 3 to 1 if we lump all handguns together. I am not suggesting we remove it but simply clarify. Such as "widely characterized by the media" and perhaps "though the facts show it is handguns", or something to that effect. -72bikers (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)