Talk:Colt AR-15 - Wikipedia


3 people in discussion

Article Images

we should probably frontload the similarities and differences from the M16/M4. Something to the effect of "The AR-15 is a civilian variant of the M16/M4 rifle featuring compatibility with components of the military versions but lacking a selective fire function (full automatic for M16A1, 3 round burst for later variants)" I leave the exact wording to others as i know this is probably going to be a touchy page for a few weeks.

This list is a back-handed and less-than-rational way of addressing "use in kiling sprees," by listing the resulting regulations. However, its apparently an arbitrary list, covering only a small fraction of the globe, and its reason for being is unclear and perhaps slightly dishonest.

But far be it from me to tangle with the awesome and dangerous Wiki-powers that I assume prevail here.

I reverted an IP who is making a common mistake concerning the AR-15. M16 is a military designation for the AR-15, the latter being Armalite's original designation for the rifle regardless of it being select-fire or not. Please see the caption to the photo in this book.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is a common mistake...unfortunately the article seems to do everything in power to confuse the reader. As it is constantly (and oftentimes inappropriately) referring to M16s, "Drop In Auto Sear", full-auto variants, etc. Perhaps, we should divide and rename the article. The new "COLT AR-15" page would focus only on the semi-auto models, with a Discretionary sanctions header on the talk page allowing editors to ruthlessly purge the machine-gun and assault rifle content. Then we can create a new "ARMALITE AR-15" page where we can focus on the early history of the ArmaLite and M16 rifles, while allowing discussion of machine gun conversions and assault rifle variants.--RAF910 (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

The "AR-15" model name is, as pointed out in the article, a copyrighted trademark belonging to Colt. It seems the article ignores this fact by almost immediately continuing to use it to describe clones from other manufacturers as AR-15s. You are contributing to the common misuse of the name by persons who insist on labeling it as an "assault weapon". Wikipedia is expected, I believe, to help dissuade such misuse instead of contributing to confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papabill1945 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am assuming from the text that this article was intended to refer to the original AR-15 design (that became the M16) and all its variants, rather than just the civilian versions of the original design. I have changed the introductory paragraph to make that clear. I don't care what this article covers, but a choice needs to be made.

PrivateThoughts (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

It seems obvious that most people would expect this to be about the entirety of the line of weapons sold under the AR-15 designation. The bulk of this would be the AR 15 as opposed to the M16 and M4 versions. 220.122.184.152 (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

The problem with that view is that the article begins with the discussion of the Armalite version, which was made into the M16. PrivateThoughts (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Not the "controversy due to mass shootings". The heading as such is unacceptable.

Legally obtainable assault-style rifles now have a history of being utilized for mass murder, and as such, a history should be written about it. There is no controversy (as currently stated), no one is arguing (i.e., having a controversy) about the use of this weapon in mass murder. Anyone looking to learn about this weapon should be aware of it's devastating history on civilian life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.43.213 (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

  • All weapons through history, from stone-age axes and spears to the AR-15, have a "history of being utilized for mass murder". And no, there's no reason to add a separate "History of mass murder" section in this article, no more than there is to add it in any other article about individual weapons. Discuss it on the talk pages of gun control articles and articles about individual mass murderers instead, not here. Kitchen knives are the most common murder tools, BTW, are you going to add a "History of mass murder" section to Knife too? Thomas.W talk 15:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Knives also give you a heart transplant and cut my bread. Knives do a lot of things. Guns do one thing, and this particular gun is particularly known for doing a particular thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.26.240 (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply 

 Do one thing? Which is that? Put meat on my table?  Enable me to defend my home? Allow me to engage in popular sport shooting competitions?  Your bias is showing. Make sure is does not enter the article.
The AR-15 is not an Assault rifle. The media and politians using the wrong terminology for something, does not justify using said wrong terminology on Wikipedia. 76.22.43.213 has a very clear and present bias on this topic. 76.22.43.213 has only edited one thing in the past, and that was in 2010. This should not be included, not only due to this clear bias, but if we include these horrible things on this page, we also need to add them to every other firearm page, as well as every time a specific model of a car is used by a drunk driver to kill someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MordeKyle (talk • contribs) 21:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

This whole section is clearly about politics and propaganda. I have deleted it. This discussion is a good example of why it needs to go. People tried to keep it factual and even that was controversial. PrivateThoughts (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

If you guys really think that reliable sources haven't repeatedly discussed the AR-15 in the context of mass shootings then you haven't been doing your research. There's a huge difference between the topics and articles you list above, such as "knife", and specific brands or types of weapons. This is a systemic problem with firearms articles. For some reason, facts like the color and weight are considered vital detaisl relative to notability, but scores of articles about their use in massacres are considdered irrelevant trivia. That's POV editing, plain and simple. Felsic2 (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

The "Legal status of civilian ownership" section section needs to be out-merged for the countries that don't distinguish AR-15s from other semi-automatic weapons. One of the various "gun politics" pages may be a good target. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I don't personally feel it is necessary to have this page be filled with the "legal status" of this firearm, but if it must, the page should only reference laws that specifically target the AR-15. MordeKyle (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

YES - I believe this section is irrelevant to this article. This is not added to other firearm pages. I feel if we retain this section, it would need to be added to every other firearm page, as well as every car model used by a drunk driver, every hammer used in a crime, every baseball bat, etc. This is just my opinion. I feel with an already VERY lengthy section on the legality of this rifle, that this is just not necessary to the article and gives just another point of contention in an already hot article. MordeKyle (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Are other RS making this specific connection? If so, then it should stay. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
None that I have seen. MordeKyle (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
  Done as per PrivateThoughts above. MordeKyle (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
If individual brands of baseball bats were routinely linked to murders, then of course we'd mention that in the articles about them. This is a crazy and totally invalid argument. Do you guys really beleive there is no controversy about this weapon beyond whether it jams tool frequently? Felsic2 (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
AR-15 is not an individual brand, for one thing, it is a rather generic design at this point. You not understanding why it is different from any other gun, doesn't make it any different from any other gun. The AR-15 is no different than any other firearm. The Ruger Mini-14 is literally the exact same firearm, it just looks "less scary". It even uses the same magazine that the AR-15 does, fires the same rounds, at the same frequency. Besides any of this, the AR-15 is used less in crime than A LOT of other firearms. It is even used less in crime than other tools such as hammers and baseball bats. You don't even understand what you are talking about, yet you are on this page trying to add controversy to it. There are MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of these "evil assault rifles" in the united states, if the firearms and their owners were as dangerous as you are making them out to be, everyone would be dead. MordeKyle (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
If the AR-15 and the Ruger Mini-14 are "literally the exact same firearm", then why do we have articles on both of them? Felsic2 (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Well that's because they are different guns. In terms of functions, and in relation to your argument, they are no different, I'm just pointing out that the Mini-14 has the exact same capacity to be used by an evil person to kill people as the AR-15 does. As I also stated above, which you clearly ignored or have no response to, the AR-15 is used less to commit murder than many other firearms. It is not more deadly or less deadly than any other firearm. It is a tool, and nothing more. Just as a hammer was designed to drive a nail, the AR-15 was designed to protect freedom. Sometimes the hammer is used to do something other than drive a nail, it is not a fault of the hammer or people who use their hammers within the scope of it's design. You are blaming an object for something that evil people have done, while millions upon millions of good people who own AR-15's, will never do any evil with them, and will only use them to defend themselves and to defend freedom. MordeKyle (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
After review of your contributions to Wikipedia, it seems that your forte on Wikipedia is to vandalize (WP:VD) firearm related pages, so I won't feed into your attempts. Please adhere to WP:POLICY. MordeKyle (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Just to clarify, the AR15 and the Mini14 are, in many ways, essentially the same firearm, but they are not literally the same firearm. Call it semantics if you like, but words are important. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your input @Niteshift36: I used the word "literally" incorrectly. This doesn't change the message, and anyone reading that knew what I was saying. Thanks MordeKyle (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • I get it and I've used the illustration between the AR and Mini14 probably a hundred times myself. But Felsic was hanging part of his argument on the semantics and he quoted that incorrect use, so when you answered with "because they are different guns", I felt someone should just step in and state the obvious to Felsic because you didn't seem to be inclined to clarify it on your own. Let's not act like I'm the enemy here. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Niteshift36: I'm not acting like you're the enemy, nor did I imply that. I actually thanked you in my reply, twice. I was just saying that Felsic is a troll, and we should feed the troll. Thanks again, MordeKyle (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

This talk section continues to prove to me that the section had no purpose other than propaganda. PrivateThoughts (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC) PrivateThoughts (talk)Reply

This question was asked a long time ago and the material was removed: Do we really need the manufacturers list? Does it really serve to help people understand the AR15 to know that out of all the firearms Remington makes, one happens to be an AR? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Since these rifles are so generic, it's not clear to me why we have any articles about specific models. We don't have articles about individuals brands of washing machines. Safir T-15, Carbon 15, almost every entry in Category:AR-platform firearms... Why bother devoting space to non-notable variants? They can be covered iether in this article or in their manufacturers. Felsic2 (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

The list is incomplete and it's also useless, in my opinion, but this article is attracting a lot of vandalism now, and I am paying more attention to that. PrivateThoughts (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply