Talk:Colt AR-15/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Port Arthur heading

@Simonm223:, @ProntComando:, 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)

My personal preference is to keep it in the section header - from a usability perspective. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• According to the MOS:HEAD guideline, section headings should not contain links. I prefer the standard practice of using a "main article" template directly below the heading. In this case the section is so short that it make sense to link the first mention within the section. –dlthewave ☎ 20:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Springee:, @Simonm223: 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)

Clear case of overlink. -72bikers (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree it is not needed.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

consider me trouted
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see @72bikers: 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) And he was right, there was no consensus for your "compromise".Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC) 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) 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) Then report it, this is not the place to grouse about other eds actions.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Correct or incorrect, Simon's edits were all in good faith. Springee (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Specifying "civilian" in the description

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)

Agreed. What makes it "civilian grade" apart from being semi-automatic? If there is in fact some other specific characteristic that makes it "civilian grade", the article should report that feature, not use vague ill-defined terms. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

• I don't think the impact to the article is significant one way or the other. The sourcing we have does support adding the civilian claim though it would be better to say civilian and law enforcement since that follows the source Red Rock Canyon mentioned. It is very clear based on the evidence that Colt created the semi auto rifle to be able to sell it outside of the restrictions on sales of full auto rifles. Like I said, I'm indifferent on the change but I, respectfully, don't agree with Simonm223's argument for the reversal. Springee (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• The AR-15 was developed specifically for the civilian market rather than military. It is an important distinction. PackMecEng (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, and the article should say so clearly and in plain language. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

What language would be more plain than civilian? PackMecEng (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• While we may also differ on whether law enforcement should be considered "civilian," I will suggest that with no contextualization, just calling it a "civilian" weapon is POV pushing compared to your more nuanced created to be able to sell it outside of the restrictions on sales of full auto rifles. I would not object to a statement that said that. But a statement that just calls the weapon "civilian" is not doing that. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • See that statement goes the other way on POV pushing. I think every source talking about the history of the AR-15, even modern ones, talk about it as a rifle developed for the civilian market.[1][2][3] PackMecEng (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Again, all I'm asking is that the statement be more contextualized than a single-word reference. I provided Springee's statement here at talk as an example of contextualization. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I made an edit that essentially just moved the phrase about civilian and law enforcement markets to the previous sentence. I think it reads better that way anyway, and hopefully it's OK with people here and addresses this point (if not revert or edit, obviously). Waleswatcher (talk) 13:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sort of indifferent on the change. I just thought that Simonm's initial reason for removing the text was simply wrong, since there were sources in the article supporting the language. I think the current lead works well with changes by Waleswatcher. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 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)

• I didn't include this in my earlier comment but I think we should add a section that outlines the differences between the civilian and military versions of the rifles. Colt made a number of changes to make sure the semi-auto rifles couldn't be readily converted to fully auto by swapping in a few parts from an automatic version. Here is the section in the AR-15 article. [[4]] I would suggest copying this over (with tractability to the other article). Springee (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

.

• If everyone else is good with the "civilian and law-enforcement customers" I am fine with it. Also with Springee's suggestion I think that would be a good idea as well to give addition clarifications of the technical differences. Though I am not sure if it should be here or the general AR article, since it is something all the AR variants does. Then again it is what Colt specifically developed for it. I do not know the best answer. PackMecEng (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

Pittsburgh synagogue

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Support taking a wait and see approach. Red Rock is also correct, it's not clear that this tragedy is going to have an impact on the rifle. Springee (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

(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)

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)

• Why? Mass shootings in the USA are unexceptional. Use of AR-15s and variants likewise. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I mean I don't think anybody is trying to dispute how absolutely abnormal and shocking it is that the United States has had such a stark increase in mass shooting incidents with fourteen shootings claiming ten or more victims, including six of the ten deadliest shootings in modern US history occurring in the last ten years. But the fact that the country next door is literally half-way to the operating definition of an armed conflict counting only mass shooting deaths in the last 10 years isn't what we're adjudicating here. Mass shootings should be exceptional, and in any sane country we would be. But this article isn't about a sane country. It's about a weapon beloved by an insane country. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Lets not soapbox too much.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Statements like Mass shootings in the USA are unexceptional really upset me. If that soapbox was too much I'll willingly self-revert. Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You shouldn't self-revert because what you wrote is self-evident. The problem here isn't you, it's the editors that fight tooth and nail to prevent wikipedia from mentioning the fact that these weapons are responsible for horrific mass murders. I'm sick and tired of it, and I hope the wider community will take note. Waleswatcher (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

Reporting on the use of a rifle

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.

There are no laws in Pennsylvania that would have prevented Mr. Bowers from owning the guns, including the assault weapon that confronted police who first responded to the shooting. (...) The power of the rifle used in Saturday’s massacre was chillingly revealed in frantic calls over police radio as the killing unfolded. “We’re under fire, we’re under fire. He’s got an automatic weapon. He’s firing out of the front of the synagogue,” came one call over the police radio. “We are pinned down by gunfire.”

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)

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)

You guys do know that AK-47s and AR-15s are completely different rifles?--RAF910 (talk) 05:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant as only one user has supported inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

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)

RAF910, yes of course. The point of that quote is that the police reported they were being fired at with a rifle as opposed to a handgun, which establishes the AR was in fact used. As for WP:DUE, Simonm223 is incorrect - I at least believe it is DUE, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. Waleswatcher (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• AR15A2 Carbine.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Pittsburgh synagogue shooting (reprise)

Half a year later, and there are multiple RSs that state a Colt AR-15 was used in the shooting [5][6][7]. Moreover, Pittsburgh passed a regulation that bans the use of assault weapons in response [8]. This addresses the concerns raised earlier (that it was hard to find RSs that stated the AR was used, and that its use might not be considered consequential or important), and so I'd like to add some information on it to the mass shooting section of the article. Waleswatcher (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

While it is certainly interesting that they passed a law for that city. The article does say that it violates state law and federal law there to do so. Also generally the consequential or impact of such a law is at a national level not a specific city. For example what Australia did. But overall I am undecided on it right now, I would like to hear some other opinions on the matter. PackMecEng (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

None of the above sources say "Colt" and they are general to the AR-15 style rifle, not "Colt AR-15". The impact to the "Colt AR-15" hasn't been shown. It's not clear this has had a lasting impact on the Colt rifle or it's notoriety. Conversely, it's part of the general din related to the AR-15 style rifle news. Springee (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Tend to agree, this might have a place on the article about the type of rifle, not an specific model.Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The rifle was a Colt AR-15, that's why we had this discussion in the first place here after it happened. Here are the first three sources from a google search: [9] [10] [11] Waleswatcher (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Not to sure the first source passes muster, but yes we have sources saying Cult ar-15, so do with have any sources that say it was not?Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Do we have any sources that say this crime is associated with the rifle? That is how does this crime have an impact on the rifle? It seems most reports about this crime talk about the rifle as a generic AR-15, not as a Colt product. Are there any sources about the rifle that mention this crime? Springee (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

What's the reason for your question? Is there any wiki policy that requires such a source?Waleswatcher (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

My question goes to WEIGHT. Weight says we follow in proportion, "to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." So it's already questionable on grounds that sources about the subject of this article don't mention this crime. Even if we ignore that it's clear that articles about the crime don't focus on and more often than not don't mention "Colt". That doesn't establish weight. The "law change" on which you are justifying inclusion was part of the firearms project page. A RfC made it clear it's only a suggestion, not a binding rule. Furthermore it seems this would be a stretched interpretation even were it a rule. Springee (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The Pittsburgh shooting has received wide RS coverage, including reliable sources that associate the Colt AR-15 with the crime. I see no reason not to add it to the Criminal Use paragraph. Sources don't have to focus on the Colt AR-15; an article about a crime that mentions the weapon would indeed fall into the body of work that has been written about the weapon.

We don't typically assess WP:WEIGHT by comparing the proportion of coverage to everything that has ever been written about the overall topic. This would exclude all sorts of details throughout the article: Do most sources about the Colt AR-15 mention minutiae such as the "duckbill" being prone to vegetation entanglement or the specifics of its bolt operation? Have these things been shown to have an effect on or significant association with this specific weapon or does that standard only apply to criminal use? If we were writing an article about Barack Obama or Donald Trump, would we ignore their pre-presidential lives since nearly all that has been written focuses on their presidencies? –dlthewave ☎ 23:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Dl, the association between the "Colt AR-15", not just the generic AR-15 style rifle has almost no coverage. Again look at what Weight actually says. I'm not suggesting we compare all sources about the Colt AR-15 with those that mention this crime to establish weight. I'm asking if any sources about the Colt AR-15 mention this crime. What impact do you think this has had on the Colt AR-15? Springee (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't assessed the impact on the weapon because I'm unaware of any policy or guideline that requires it. How do you define a source as being "about the Colt AR-15"? As I mentioned before, I believe that sources about the crime which mention the weapon fall into the body of what has been written about the Colt AR-15. –dlthewave ☎ 23:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Springee wrote: even if we ignore that it's clear that articles about the crime don't focus on and more often than not don't mention "Colt" and the association between the "Colt AR-15", not just the generic AR-15 style rifle has almost no coverage. That's as clear as mud. Where did you get "more often than not"? Have you checked all the articles? Unless you have, please don't pretend otherwise. Then, in posts separated by about eight hours you went from "more often than not" to "almost no coverage". What evidence caused you to change your mind?

The facts are, I linked above to the top three results in a google search (I forget the exact search terms), all three of which mention that the rifle was a Colt. I just did another search, "pittsburgh shooting gun used", and of the top three news articles that came up, one [12] just refers to "AR 15", one [13] says the rifle used was a Colt, and one [14] details the history of the AR, talks about Colt, and if anything makes it sound as though Colt is the only manufacturer of AR 15 style rifles. There are plenty of RSs about the Pittsburgh shooting that mention the Colt AR 15, and that establishes weight according to wiki guidelines. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I did a search for "Pittsburgh synagogue shooting" and looked at the first 5 hits. Only two mentioned "AR-15" at all. CNN did say Colt along with the brands of the other guns. It didn't focus on it. So no, I don't think you have shown a associative link between the crime and the rifle. CNN seems to be mentioning it just as a standard bit of information but isn't tying any meaning to it being a "Colt" vs some other brand. BI, as you said, was talking about the history of the AR-15 not calling out that this was special because it was a "Colt" product. I would note that a similar debate now twice found that the S&W M&P-15 article shouldn't include discussion of a similar crime. Springee (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

OK - so "more often than not" and "almost no coverage" were baseless assertions, since you've disproven the second and implicitly admitted that you had no basis for the first (if not, go ahead and show us your research). Please avoid such unfounded hyperbolic statements in the future. CNN seems to be mentioning it just as a standard bit of information but isn't tying any meaning to it being a "Colt" vs some other brand. This is a novel argument, at least for me. What is the basis for assuming that a source isn't "tying any meaning" to information it gives about an event? Waleswatcher (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

3 of 5 didn't mention AR-15 at all. Sorry, you haven't shown the impact or linkage to this firearm to establish weight. You continue to ignore the words of WEIGHT, "published material on the subject." Springee (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Springee, by making false (""almost no coverage") and/or unsupported ("more often than not", "isn't tying any meaning to") assertions, and repeatedly declining to answer questions ("What is the basis for assuming that a source isn't "tying any meaning" to", "How do you define a source as being "about the Colt AR-15"?") about your arguments, you're giving the impression that you are engaging in tendentious editing, specifically Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Disputing_the_reliability_of_apparently_good_sources and Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Ignoring_or_refusing_to_answer_good_faith_questions_from_other_editors. Weight is already established by the many RSs that report that a Colt AR-15 was used in this attack, not to mention those that report that as a result, it and similar weapons were banned by Pittsburgh and those that connect it to other mass shootings.Waleswatcher (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can be made happy in this case. You used a narrow search for the type of weapon used in the crime and based your view that weight has been established on that. I used a more general search for the crime and found a different result. We are going round and round at this point. Accusing me of bad faith isn't going to help and I would ask you to consider if the accusations are even valid. I have never claimed your RS's are mistaken or aren't reliable, rather I've questioned that they established WEIGHT for inclusion in this article. I've answered your questions but you don't like the answers. At the same time you have refused to address my concerns such as why no articles about the Colt AR-15 discuss this crime (see the language in WEIGHT). Please also consider the similar case discussed here Talk:Smith_&_Wesson_M&P15#Request_for_comment:_add_three_instances_of_criminal_use. You feel Weight has been established but that isn't established as the consensus view. Your view is based on an assumption that Weight for inclusion here is established by articles about the crime mentioning the rifle. However, such attempts to establishments of weight have been questioned and failed to gain consensus in the past. I don't think either of us will change the opinion of the other so perhaps our best plan is to sit back and let others weigh in. Springee (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

ROF

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

Note until someone one makes a case either way I will revert to the original.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where the original came from. where is the source? Aside from that, other reliable sources don't support this 800 number. Vox, hardly a pro-gun website, says that the fully auto M16 has a cyclic rate of 840. Also "Bushmaster has estimated that the XM-15, its variant on the AR-15, can fire 45 rounds per minute; Wired’s Greenberg puts the number closer to 80 to 100. A shooter using a 10- or 30-round magazine might shoot fewer due to the time spent reloading.". They further point out "According to analysis by the New York Times, in the Orlando Pulse shooting, the gunman used a semiautomatic Sig Sauer MCX rifle and fired 24 shots in nine seconds, for a rate of fire of 160 rounds per minute."[15] Wired magazine, while describing devices like a hellfire trigger says "That can allow a shooter to easily fire hundreds of rounds a minute, compared to the 80 or 100 shots or so the average shooter could manage with normal trigger squeezes."[16] I'm sure we can find more, but this should be enough to at least remove the unsourced number and discus a change. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Coment

Wile I believe proactive discloser of others personal opinions to be an important part of WP:NPOV you should never ask me to recuse myselves (how do you expect me to fead my narcissism) from a discussion on the basis of my point of views.

To do so contravenes WP:NPA.(because i say soo)

It does not matter if I go to a article for the first time and speak to people like this when i want to remove this content(oppiset of my opionoin) that states AR 15 are not the weapon of choices for mass murders

"A study by Dr. Fox a professor of criminology, and statistics assembled by Mother Jones on mass shootings from 1982-2018 show the weapon of choice overwhelmingly is semi-auto handguns, and a very common misconception is that AR-15's or similar rifles were preferred. AR-15's specifically in the last 35 years have only been used in 14 mass shootings. Rifles have been used 25 percent of time in mass shootings, semi-auto handguns almost half of the time.[64][65][66]"

"I removed it because it was literal nonsense. I suggest you self-revert." Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[17]

"I reverted a literally illiterate and confounding paragraph(or just three senteces whatever). It was a mess. But whatever." Simonm223 (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[18]

"Ok, going forward I will refer to the edit with the word I meant, even though it's a little bit less kind. It was illiterate." Simonm223 (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[19]

"Its "un-intelligibility"(made up word so what I am still smarterr than use) lies in its complete failure with regard to grammar. Thus illiterate seems apropos. I decided to go with illegible, IE: impossible to read, because it seemed slightly kinder. But notwithstanding my word choice the edit is still galling and WP:CIR still applies." Simonm223 (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[20]

Aand there is no problem with after more than a month of claiming i have no bias, proclaim my true point of view. "This general type of firearm is a people-killer designed to kill humans and I sometimes question why some people devote so much time to defending its dubious honour." Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[21]

To claim that a persons POV make them incapable of serving the neatral goal of Wikipedia is to make the false claim that some peoples are inherently neatral and lady justice is blind. (my vast expeence says this is impoable)

if i your superior can not be neatral then none of you infearars can be.

Such a people does not exist.(I says so therefor it is fact)

EG: centrism is unnecessary and i got my bed buddy to bail me out anyway.[22] Simonm223 (talk) 12:27 , 7 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

References

History Section

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)