Talk:Colt AR-15

message: This section starts right off the bat with the sale of Armalite and then throws in "something something M16". A reader unfamiliar with the subject has no idea what's beings said here. Armalite's history of the development of the AR should be included here as well as to how and why the M16 and the AR are being compared to each other.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.169.5 (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section 

message: I think that the voting options here are problematic. Support with a possible caveat to include a link isn't an option I'm comfortable with for reasons I suspect are clear. As such, I am forced to vote with a simple oppose. Syr74 (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The intent is that editors will explain the level of coverage they feel is appropriate. Since this isn't a vote, whoever closes the discussion will gauge the consensus based on these comments. I want to avoid a situation in which someone !votes "oppose" just because they have a minor quibble with the wording. –dlthewave ☎ 01:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't doubt that the intent is good here, the layout itself is short-sighted in my opinion and absolutely gives the appearance of a bias toward the support side of the argument. Even though this is not a scholastic article we can learn something from that well developed format, which is that the question should be written as if the burden is on inclusion, not omission, as it allows for a better snapshot of what people actually think. For example, if 10 people support here and 6 oppose, but 3 of those who support only support inclusion of a see also link and no actual of inclusion of any text in this article, the final vote wouldn't in any way support the majority view which would be no text within the article. Honestly, I suspect that this is a formality because I fully expect support to take the day here easily either way, but appearances do matter. We need to be careful that it looks like we gave every option an equal opportunity so these things can be put to bed permanently. 98.23.45.127 (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "permanently" doesn't belong in a discussion of this nature. Recent student protests tell us that, clearly, moods change in this arena. HiLo48 (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And that is the problem, moods shouldn't direct an encyclopedia, relevance and balance should. Syr74 (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, and as the mood of the public changes, and reliable sources tell us about the changed attitudes, that is what we report. We cannot write as if the mood of the public will never change. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Well if not the specific model SP1 Carbine was mentioned, it is somehow logically that it can not have had influence on developing laws in australia. My assumption is that the government thought broader as of "assault rifles" or Battle rifle. BTW in the case of "Port Arthur massacre" there is a second rifle with missing sources. The identification as L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle as quoted in the article could be an urban legend. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why I'm very on the fence with this crime.  There were two semi-auto rifles involved but it doesn't seem that many sources link either specific rifle to the crime.  It seems the crime is associated with the general class of "Semi-auto rifle" but not with the specific rifles used.  But since this is such a significant crime in terms of outcome and impact to the politics of gun control I'm actually ignoring what I think is a weak weight argument.  Springee (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the information came from a IP-Editor i followed IP 96.54.224.159. Surprise, surprise ... this user systematically altered informations about identification of weapons in crimes !!! See    . Seeing thus I can only recommend to check informations about weapons in each case before creating new urban legends. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, if I understand your concern, you think an IP editor inserted a fact that was basically never questioned and has now been accepted as fact without actual proof. After some quick web searching I think we might be suffering from a Wikipedia effect. As you indicated, the IP editor inserted the information here []. I've been searching for references that support the SLR's inclusion and found a number that note the rifle was used but so far all date from after the above insertion. Thus it opens the question that sources and articles talking about the subject have reviewed this article, quoted the claims and now we can, in a circular fashion, cite sources that support the claim. But if we could trace their citation chain back they would be citing Wikipedia. This is definitely a potential issue and perhaps one that should be raised on the Port Arthur page assuming no RS prior to March 2012 can be found. Springee (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. Sources for the Port Arthur massacre of 28–29 April 1996 should not be younger than 2012 or better 2010 to be reliable. For the already located IP an Wikipedia:CheckUser might be recommendable. Wrong informations are picked up and reported f.e. here. Exactly this ends up in having wrong informations in references f.e. in L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle#cite_note-22 here. This ends up in a need for critical checks for all this crime related articles. Connecting crimes to weapon groups as done in Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#Weapons_used is less critical. To do this checks in RFC's for firearms-articles is somehow not the best option.  --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pretty significant. Do we even have a credible source that specifically states this rifle was the weapon used in the Port Author Massacre? Syr74 (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You could try the court transcripts. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

text: At this point, I would say that we have strong pre-2011 support for "AR-15". –dlthewave ☎ 22:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking a look.  Tom found a court document that mentioned the SLR [].  So at that point I would say at least we have a non-blog/forum source.  I understand court testimony isn't always "reliable" but at this point I'm satisfied that at least the claim wasn't invented around the time it was inserted into the article.  We might still be seeing some Wikipedia effect with reporters seeing the fact here then reporting it based on what's here but that isn't an issue so long as the referencing isn't circular.  Springee (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

text: You lost me completely there with your final two sentences. Not constructive at all. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an issue I struggle with.  Weight is easy to establish when RSs talking about the subject of the article mention a claim (articles about Mustangs talking about idiot drivers crashing when leaving Coffee and Cars events).  What about cases where the subject of the Wiki article is mentioned in an article about another subject (Mr (name here) has a big Mustang collection)?  This is a matter of weight that should be worked out.  Project Firearms provided guidance by suggesting weight be limited to cases where the impact was more than just the crime (a significant legal change for example).  As I said before, I think it's odd that a RfC similar to this one said do not mention the use of a blue Chevy Caprice in the DC snipper attacks (strong opposition) yet the gun used in the same attacks does mention the crime on it's page.  It seems logically inconsistent to me but I haven't looks to see if the inclusion on the gun page was ever challenged.  Springee (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

text: AR 15 is one of 3 Guns which were named in court for the Port Arthur massacre: "AR15 semi-automatic .223 calibre rifle and FN, commonly called an SLR military style semi-automatic .308 calibre rifle and a semi-automatic Daiwoo twelve gauge shotgun". Protocol (19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1996) For me this gives the idea that the court was not interested to identify any submodel of this weapons. For this RFC one of 3 guns is less significant. Even less significant, because the Port Arthur massacre is already mentioned in AR-15_style_rifle#Use_in_crime_and_mass_shootings --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded Discussion

message: A source for the Colt AR-15 SP1 carbine, serial number SP128807, would be found in "The Port Arthur Shooting Incident",
Australian Police Journal; December 1998. Problem: I don't have this source and it isn't to be found online. It's my understanding that it's available in many libraries in Australia. I'm going to see if ILL works internationally. Geogene (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean "The Port Arthur shooting incident; Australian Police Journal; December 1998: pp. 207-228." ??? Very interesting.  By the serial Number I found  KEITH ALLAN NOBLE: MASS MURDER Official Killing in Tasmania, Australia (E-Book with 718 Pages). At p. 29 "A TANGLED WEB OF POLICE CORRUPTION " and more Info. Addtional reading with  Stewart K. Beattie: A Gunsmith's Notebook on Port Arthur (E-Book with 400 Pages) If this Infos are reliable, parts of the story have to be rewritten because of partial debt of australian officials. I suggest to wait here till the authors have done their job in the article Port Arthur massacre (Australia). If you want to thank for the help of WP:Firearms to check and find sources for the article Port Arthur massacre here or in any press releases (comparable with the press-releases which blamed WP:Firearms) will show up in future. Interesting to see if mentioning of this scandal connected to the Colt AR 15 article will still be on the top-level-wish-list of crime and politics-related writers or other party’s. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "Stewart K. Beattie; A Gunsmith's Notebook on Port Arthur (E-Book with 400 Pages)" appears to be a self-published source by a conspiracy theorist. I looked at it briefly, so I could be wrong, but that was my first impression. There are apparently other theories out there that Bryant was "framed" or some such. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well lets just see how it works out in Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Improvement_of_Article_/_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Politics/Gun_politics. The Book you mentioned is absolutely reliable concerning the technical details (which are not available in other sources). Conspiracy (aka POV) seems to be a problem in all sources ... depending from which side they come. We will do our best to prove the truth. Any help is appreciated. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Update & Info: there is a problem with a central source/document of the article. Pls. see Talk:Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Problems_with_used_sources_of_the_article --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Update & Info: as there are still many deficits in the article I added  an additional request for help in this project part of wikipedia in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit break

message: This edit was a reversion that removed a claim of the AR-15's used in "many mass shootings" on the basis that had no references. This article may be a suitable reference, if that's the only reason for that claim's removal. - Mr.1032 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: thx for the hint. Since we are here on the discside of Colt AR-15 it is interesting to see that not one Colt AR-15 is mentioned in the list of the article you presented. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is a bit funny.  The Colt AR-15 is not singled out from other similar rifles in the attempt to restrict access to such guns, as is mentioned in that section, so I think that reference could still be appropriate, even though there are no actual Colt AR-15s on the list. - Mr.1032 (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we have the AT-15 Style Rifle article I would suggest not using generalized statements about AR-15 type rifles here.  This article should be strictly Colt AR-15s. Springee (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like references weren't the only reason after all.  That makes sense to me, thank you.  And I assume you're referring to the AR-15 style rifle article; AT-15 sounds more like a rifle that walks (attempt at humor, not always my strong suit). - Mr.1032 (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: D'oh!  Yes, I wasn't thinking Star Wars.  (leaving the mistake so your comments stay in context ;) Springee (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "used in many mass shootings" 

message: I love pictures, but I think we're going a little overboard with the number of pics used in this article. Opinions? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I went ahead and removed the photo of the Ruger SR-556. Most of the close-ups can probably go as well. –dlthewave ☎ 13:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of photos 

message: I restored "The adolescent cult of the AR-15" from The Week to the media template. The article is clearly about this page. At the time of the writing, "Colt AR-15" was the page that had "AR-15" in its name. The page that is now AR-15 was then called "Modern Sporting Rifle". --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , in that case are you going to remove it from the AR15 style rifle page which didn't exist at the time?  The article slanders one of our editors while providing no insight or value.  Springee (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the entry has already been removed from the AR-15 Talk page: , which seems fair. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The Week'' 

message: So what is the reason for not saying AR stands for Armalite Rifle in the lead, it not its name an important feature of a product?Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering the same myself. I was truly surprised to see it removed, with an ineffective Edit summary. One complaint I have heard from gun enthusiasts about those wanting increased controls on guns is that such people are ignorant, and don't know what they are talking about, and even think that AR stands for Assault Rifle. Why not make sure they do know the truth? HiLo48 (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually a reason was given (I did not see it until after I posted this) that it is because the TM name is AR and not Armnalite.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This conversation is becoming silly. I DID NOT say no reason was given, so there is no point you saying "Actually a reason was given". The reason given, the Edit summary,  was "Returned to earlier version.". Sorry, that's not a reason. HiLo48 (talk) 09:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then allow me to say it is a different way. My objection was because I saw no reason why it was removed, I have  now seen a reason why it was removed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  AR 

message: , , I think ProntoComando is correct in that we don't need a hot link in the title because it exists in the first sentence of the section.  Per MOS:DL we should just have one link.  Does it make more sense to keep the link in the section header or the intro sentence? Springee (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal preference is to keep it in the section header - from a usability perspective. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ,  Thanks for the acknowledgment Springee, don't make sense to have two links of a same article in the same section, for me the link should be in the intro sentence, which would seem more natural, when the reader is reading, he will access the link to know more, don't make sense to place the link in the section header if the reader did not read the text.--ProntComando (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Clear case of overlink. -72bikers (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

text: I agree it is not needed.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree about where to position it because, from a design perspective, links in headers are more immediately visible and it's a short enough section to be visible throughout. But it's not a hill I'm prepared to die on. Simonm223 (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I see  eventually got around to editing it. I will point out that this consensus had not formed at the time I made the edit, and their pointed edit summary was rather disregarding the sequence of events. I have no intention of edit warring over it though, never fear. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And he was right, there was no consensus for your "compromise".Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you'll notice I'm not putting it back. And you'll notice at the time I did it, it was immediately after Springee first pinged me. IE: before the current consensus arose. It was an attempt at a compromise. The fact that attempt was rejected by consensus is neither here nor there. Simonm223 (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: My grouse is that as 72bikers waited six days to actually action the decision they supported, and then threw a highly pointed edit summary on it; their response was not really apropos. Had I been going down the WP:1AM rabbit hole or engaged in even the faintest hint of edit warring after the discussion concluded that'd be different. I did neither of those things. And since my complaint is with their edit summary rather than their edit itself I had little recourse other than to grumble at talk. Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Then report it, this is not the place to grouse about other eds actions.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Port Arthur heading 

message: It's WP:WEASEL plain and simple. It's an attempt to introduce a specific POV about the weapon and I question how WP:DUE it is. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a fair question.  The general AR-15 does have a section that specifically address this question.  That material should probably also be added here since it 100% applies. Springee (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and the article should say so clearly and in plain language. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What language would be more plain than civilian? PackMecEng (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Grumpy Monday Simon is grumpy, but yeah, that provides at least some context and doesn't lead to WP:WEASLE doubling of the phrase "civilian". I don't think I'll ever get satisfaction on the "we need to stop treating police - excluding those in the Federal services - as not-civilian" as long as I live on this continent, but that's a whole other kettle of rather particularly pedantic fish. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can start with a straight up copy of content here.  Colt was the company that actually did the work and it was done when the patents were still active.  The generic rifles simply copied the choices Colt had made.  It's good information to have in both.  As I said, in this article, well Colt did the actual work.  In the generic article, the one that probably gets more traffic, it's still good background information for readers.  If that information were located only here many readers would likely not find it/read it after reviewing the AR-15 page.  Springee (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to including that, although I think it would be a good idea to double-check and make sure the info is accurate and doesn't overstate the differences. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The main difference is the machining for the trigger group. The pocket is smaller and missing some holes on an AR and will not fit the trigger that allows for select fire. PackMecEng (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

text: OK, I added the text with a few changes as outlined in the edit comment.  Springee (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifying "civilian" in the description 

message: I would have thought it was obvious to every reasonable person that this article needs a mention of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting.  It's about as notable as it gets - reportedly it was the most deadly attack on Jews in the USA in history.  Many gun articles - including this one - include sections on their use in notable shootings.  So, what on earth is the argument against inclusion?  Waleswatcher (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because the gun is notable to the shooting does not mean the shooting is notable to the gun. Your edit has been challenged, please do not edit war to reinsert the material. This event occurred just days ago. Let's at least wait for more sources as the story develops. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem like WP:RECENTISM currently. And it is now referenced at Mass shootings in the United States  as one of the 20 deadliest. We can wait a few weeks to see if the fact that, yet again, a bigot with a rifle used said rifle to kill a lot of people, again, leads to any discussion of the rifle or just the shooter's bigotry.Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It already has led to discussion of the rifle, on radio and TV news (I've heard it myself), and here are some print links ("Menendez...says the shooting shows the need for gun control legislation and a new assault weapons ban.") from 60 seconds of googling.  It's all over the place. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Unsure about this, OK it may be the most deadly attack on US Jews, but not sure that is really a feature of the AR-15 (given the low casualty figures).Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "low casualty figures"??? Wtf? Eleven people murdered is "low casualties"?  The only excuse I can imagine for such a comment is the distorted view you might get from discussing this stuff with the editors that frequent these pages.  Maybe you need to take a step back and try to think about this from the point of view of someone not heavily involved.  Waleswatcher (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so what is the average number of victims in a shooting involving an AR-15?, what is fact is the lowest number? Here is a clue, it just scrapes in to the top 20 (along with three others). So yes by US standards not that really that deadly, there are 19 more deadly.Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict) Dunno, and I doubt that's even a well-posed question. The point is that this was a horrific, extremely notable event that is certain to have consequences for years into the future. I suppose if the Colt AR-15 had been used for many such events (like AR-15 style rifles in general may have been) there could be a case made to not include each one individually. But that's not the case for the Colt, so there is no such argument. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt will have have any more impact then the 19 more deadly shootings ever have. Unlike port Arthur no laws will change, at best (or worse) there will be thoughts and prayers from those wit the power to do something. No do I think it's notability will last, give it a few more months and another mass shooting will occur and this one will lose its "appeal", which may well break records (as most seem to when an AR-15 is involved).Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

text: This article does mention the fact, we just do not have to list every one. And given your attitude above I cannot support the inclusion of this material, and will now bow out.Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What does my attitude have to do with whether or not the material should be included in the article?  That's supposed to be based on wiki policy, which in this case warrants inclusion per NPOV. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

text: From a WP:DUE perspective I mainly want to wait and see if the rifle becomes a significant part of the story surrounding this shooting. However from a structural perspective, it should not be added to the sentence about the ten most deadly shootings as it is not one of the ten deadliest shootings in modern US history. Simonm223 (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Which is irrelevant as only one user has supported inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There's no relevance to this line of discussion; regardless of whether the weapon was an AK or an AR, almost nobody thinks its use in this particular tragedy is WP:DUE to the weapon yet. Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pittsburgh synagogue 

message: This reporting suggests that the suspect used the rifle. The reference is a bit oblique, but I don't think that the police would have confused a high-powered rifle ("automatic weapon" and "AK") with a handgun.  
  
Post Gazette. From another report that contains police communications it's clear that the rifle was used. An officer can be heard: "We are taking AK-47 fire from the front of the synagogue". Another, upon entering the building: "We have a spent magazine, looks like a high-powered AK, middle hallway".
USA Today story with audio. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: From a WP:DUE perspective I mainly want to wait and see if the rifle becomes a significant part of the story surrounding this shooting. However from a structural perspective, it should not be added to the sentence about the ten most deadly shootings as it is not one of the ten deadliest shootings in modern US history. Simonm223 (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Which is irrelevant as only one user has supported inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There's no relevance to this line of discussion; regardless of whether the weapon was an AK or an AR, almost nobody thinks its use in this particular tragedy is WP:DUE to the weapon yet. Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Reporting on the use of a rifle

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Stop reverting and discus.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:   ROF 

message: 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
[64][65][66]"   
"I removed it because it was literal nonsense. I suggest you self-revert." Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is not about you, and I have no idea how the above is about improving the article.Slatersteven (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Coment

message: I've gone ahead and made a revision of my own to the section, on the basis that it shows an obvious bias towards this particular item in general as opposed to the countless and various other firearms, of identifiable and distinctive make/model, that have also been used in Mass Shootings. These pages are supposed to highlight the subject matter itself and not sidetrack or show bias towards one or the other. If we are going to include excerpts towards mass shootings for one firearm, we must do them for all or for none.
Hopefully my reasoning is sound! If not I am open to discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:2D0A:B700:E1A5:1364:17AC:11D1 (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't blank that section without consensus, because it was added after an RfC . Geogene (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also add that the IP's "all or none" argument is counter to community consensus from a major RfC  which states that  Including this content is not inherently biased or off-topic. –dlthewave ☎ 22:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use in mass shootings