Talk:AR-15–style rifle

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 [[1]]) 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 [2]. 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)

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.[3] 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)

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)

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)