For the mainstream media, the AR-15 and its derivatives are like a huge, terrifying monster under a child’s bed.
They are evil weapons of war that can dismember an individual. They give insane killers abilities that are almost unmatched by any other type of weapon, enabling them to kill multiple victims once they have one. Make the weapon illegal to stop mass massacres. It’s that simple to the mainstream media.
The majority of these anti-gun activists posing as journalists have never owned an AR-15, though. or have acquaintances who do. They are unsure of the purpose of the weapon. Even their knowledge of its appearance is limited.
Where did I learn this? It’s not just a hunch; the excellent staff at The New York Times just gave us a lesson in how dumb most articles about the AR-15 are.
The AR-15 has become a talisman for some right-wing politicians and voters. “That’s a particularly disturbing trend at a time when violent political rhetoric and actual political violence in the United States are rising,” writes the editorial board. https://t.co/xLqthLEkSA
— New York Times Opinion (@nytopinion) December 10, 2022
“The AR-15 has become a talisman for some right-wing politicians and voters. ‘That’s a particularly disturbing trend at a time when violent political rhetoric and actual political violence in the United States are rising,’ writes the editorial board,” the Times tweeted from its opinion account on Saturday.
The whole point of the piece was that the talismanic power the “right-wing politicians and voters” attached to the AR-15 and its derivatives put gun rights advocates out of touch with the realities of gun violence. But Times editors simply don’t know much about the weapon, instead attaching undue political significance to it.
“A growing number of American civilians have an unhealthy obsession with ‘tactical culture’ and rifles like the AR-15,” the editorial board wrote.
“It’s a fringe movement among the 81 million American gun owners, but it is one of several alarming trends that have coincided with the increase in political violence in this country, along with the spread of far-right extremist groups, an explosion of anti-government sentiment and the embrace of deranged conspiracy theories by many Republican politicians.”
Unfortunately for the Times, the several hundred words of digital ink spilled by the editorial board arguing that point are rather undermined by the picture above the editorial itself. It’s the same picture used in the tweet linking to the article, in case you were wondering.
It’s a picture of shotgun shells. You know, the kind of ammunition that absolutely would not be used in a long rifle of any kind.
Complains about AR15s…with a picture of shotgun shells.
This is hysterical. https://t.co/32mf50td4B
— Andrew Follett (@AndrewCFollett) December 11, 2022
I find it amusing https://t.co/k9FjN8dUOT
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) December 11, 2022
The word AR-15 and a picture of shotgun shells really don't look good on the front of the article. Totally two different class firearms.
— Randall Racine (@captnrailroad) December 11, 2022
Yeah — it’s almost as if the Times is it doesn’t know what it’s talking about when it comes to the AR-15.
Every time you post a story or opinion piece about guns and mess up the graphics or pictures because you don’t understand guns, your credibility drops. One would think you’d hit rock bottom eventually, but maybe not.
— Brian Jackson (@brianjackson502) December 11, 2022
Or, to put it another way, “Does the entire NYT really not have one editor that can examine gun-related articles to notice something as fundamental as putting an image of shotgun shells for an article about AR-15s?” said one Twitter user.
Does the entire NYT really not have one editor that can review gun-related articles to notice something as basic as using a picture of shotgun shells for an article about AR-15s?
Definitely inspires confidence about the contents of the article. https://t.co/FWFA0307BE
— AG (@AGHamilton29) December 11, 2022
The reason the Times chose the image of the shotgun ammunition is telling, though. The same reason the AR-15 has become a bogeyman for the mainstream media is that it can be made to appear frightening.
The guiding principle for all reporting on firearms in the mainstream media is always the same: Does what we say or show cause excessive anxiety in people who consume it?