The AR-15 and its derivatives are, to the establishment media, like a big, scary monster under a kid’s bed.
They’re sinister weapons of war, capable of tearing a human being apart. Unlike any other kind of firearm, they imbue psychotic killers with nearly superhuman powers, allowing depraved lunatics who get their hands on one to kill countless victims. Outlaw the weapon, eliminate the mass shootings. To the establishment media, it’s that simple.
Yet, almost none of these anti-gun activists posing as journalists have ever owned an AR-15. Or known someone who does. They don’t know what the weapon is for. They don’t even know much about what it looks like.
How do I know this? It’s not just a guess: The good people at The New York Times just provided an object lesson in just how ignorant those writing about the AR-15 tend to be.
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 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, as one Twitter user put it: “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?”
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
What’s telling is why the Times clearly chose the picture of the shotgun ammunition, though. It’s the same reason the establishment media has made the AR-15 its boogeyman: It can be made to look scary.
All mainstream media firearms reporting is invariably dictated by one question: Does what we say or show instill undue fear in those who consume it?
If yes, green light. If not, maybe get a scarier stock ammunition photo to plop atop the editorial. Or maybe a picture of a bearded guy firing a rifle out at the range. Liberals are really afraid of bearded guys and guns together. If he’s in camo, even better.
But do they need to know anything about these firearms to file these fear-soaked reports? Don’t be silly.
Therein lies the great irony in the Times’ editorial. The AR-15 is basically a mythical creature to these sheltered Manhattanites, a kind of inanimate jackalope that emerges every so often when a mass shooter uses the rifle as the weapon of choice.
Then, it’s all about banning and seizing these so-called “assault weapons.” When that invariably doesn’t happen, right-wing politicians and voters are blamed. And, to the Times, they’re the ones with the talismanic obsession over a weapon.
Yes, well, at least they know what the ammunition for it looks like.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.