Posted on 06/19/2016 12:39:06 PM PDT by Kaslin
The Orlando attack was horrifying. A sick individual who pledged allegiance to ISIS over the phone and on social media senselessly gunned down 49 people inside Pulse nightclub in what has become the worst mass shooting in U.S. history. He used a Sig Sauer MCX semiautomatic rifle, which is an AR-15-style rifle that has similar features, but uses a different operating system. It was not an AR-15 rifle as originally reported. Nevertheless, it didn’t stop members of the media from bashing the AR-15 because that’s the firearm liberal want to ban. More importantly, it’s the firearm that President Obama wants to ban, despite long guns being used rarely in gun crimes.
Yes, publications offered corrections—but the demonization campaign continued. You had AJ+, a branch of Al-Jazeera Media Network, fire one, saying it’s the weapon of choice for massacre. Then, there was the NY Daily News columnist who frankly had no clue what he was talking about, saying that when he fired the rifle, he suffered a bruise from the recoil and “temporary PTSD.” He also compared shooting an AR-15 to that of a bazooka, which is totally ridiculous. It’s not the most powerful firearm on the market, any hunter knows their rifles fire a much more powerful round.
The AR-15 was used in the Orlando, Newtown and San Bernardino mass shootings. The NRA calls it “America’s rifle.” https://t.co/PaDsjMkfX4— The New York Times (@nytimes) June 19, 2016
Yet, let’s revisit probably one of the most egregious examples of media reporting concerning firearms and mass shootings, which occurred when Aaron Alexis killed 12 people on September 16, 2013. Everyone said it was an AR-15 rifle, including Piers Morgan who continued to repeat the false claim despite corrected reports that no such rifle was used. Most embarrassingly, CNN also refereed to Alexis buying an “AR-15 shotgun,” which doesn’t exist. Lastly, the FBI said they had no information concerning Alexis buying an AR-15 rifle. At the time, Katie wrote that Alexis bought a Remington 870 shotgun in Virginia, legally, and then illegally brought it into Washington D.C. to commit this crime.
Erik Wemple of The Washington Post noted that Morgan should issue a retraction, as he made it a cornerstone of his then-CNN program on the day of the shooting.
…if CNN is right that previous reporting on the weapon was mistaken, then CNN’s Piers Morgan may have to issue some corrections this evening. This weapon, after all, was a central talking point in Morgan’s Monday night program. At one point, in a debate with gun-rights advocated, Morgan pinned his whole spiel on the AR-15.
[…]
Perhaps Morgan should have waited a day or so to hop into the gun-control debate.
Probably the most egregious example of the AR-15 lie during the Navy Yard Shooting was MSNBC’s Chris Jansing showing Alexis using a M16A1 with a M203 grenade launcher attachment during a virtual representation of what occurred. Over at Hot Air, Ed wrote that Instapundit called this an epic fail for agenda journalism.
Chris Jansing airs animation of Navy Yard shooting showing Alexis holding AR-15 w/ grenade launcher
It doesn’t have to be this way. Slate’s Rachel Larimore noted that much of the information on firearms, calibers, operating systems, the so-called assault weapons ban, the futility of that ban, the National Firearms Act that heavily regulates automatic weapons via the ATF, the differences between automatic and semiautomatic, and how “AR” in AR-15 doesn’t stand for assault rifle can all be found on Google.
That gun writers crow when the media makes mistakes like this indicates how little regard there is for the media from the pro-gun community. There are several ways the media can remedy this situation. For starters, treat guns like any other beat (as the Guardian has done with Lois Beckett). Media outlets tend not to send sports writers to cover the Supreme Court or style writers to cover a murder. Ignorance undermines authority. If you want to report on guns, you need to understand the differences between various weapons and how they are used. Spend time at a shooting range and learn how to fire a gun. Be able to interview an NRA member without scorn or derision.
News outlets make a lot of noise about diversity. They should apply a more holistic definition. Yes, the industry should strive for inclusiveness in gender and race and ethnicity. But it also needs more geographical, socioeconomic, and ideological diversity. Employ writers who, if not gun enthusiasts themselves, grew up in a place where hunting was a normal part of life.
Provide a broader range of gun coverage. As long as the media sensationalizes mass shootings, statistics will not be on their side, and gun-rights supporters know this. Such events are so horrific that it makes it easy to appeal to people’s emotions. But statistically, they are very rare. Exploiting these tragedies, calling semi-automatic rifles “weapons of war” and the “weapon of choice” for mass shooters is a conversation-ender with pro-gun types. It’s much harder to write about the gun violence in inner cities, like Chicago. You’re dealing with systemic problems far beyond guns. But ignoring the wider violence creates the impression that the media cares only about rifles and mass shootings.
Having staff writers dedicated to Second Amendment issues that aren’t anti-gun nuts is a great idea, but Larimore mentions that the media is less at fault over the AR-15 and MCX rifle mix-up since the information between the two rifles is very similar. I, of course, disagree. Initially, yes, maybe that was the case, as the ATF posted a tweetshowing an AR-15 as one of the firearms the Orlando killer bought legally—but the media continued to clamor about the evils of this beautiful rifle even after reports were corrected. You have to make the distinctions—and you need to stop with the idiotic stories about how you got hurt firing an AR-15 to desperately convey the point that this firearm should not be owned by civilians. Too late—law-abiding Americans already own millions of them. It’s that part that makes me somewhat unnerved; that the liberal media continues to push for the AR-15’s abolition, despite those attempts ending in failure. Are they hoping that one more mass killing will do the trick? If so, that’s insane. There’s no way the assault weapons ban is coming any time soon, but in the meantime—we have to fight against their narratives.
And that’s the point. We all knew that as soon as the AR-15 was erroneously reported as the weapon in this attack, the endless posts about how we need to ban this rifle were coming. Even after the reports were corrected to show that it was a Sig Sauer MCX rifle, the attack on the AR-15, and similar rifles, was going to continue. Any punch against this pernicious agenda journalism should be thrown. And yes, it’s that can start with noting that the media messed up naming the murder weapon.
The “media” just wants something done about those terrifying “Glock” AR-47 “assault rifles” that causes “reporters” to wet their pants, develop serious wounds on their shoulders and develop a “temporary” case of post traumatic stress disorder.
The other night on the FOX News O’Reilly Factor Geraldo Rivera called the weapon used in Orlando an AR15 Assault rifle and referred to it as either a fully automatic or a machine gun - I can’t recall the exact phrasing.
Eric Bolling sort of corrected him a little by saying the AR15 was not an assault rifle but let the fact that the muslim killer didn’t use an AR15 and that the AR15 isn’t fully automatic go without rebuttal.
But all those problems were fixed when NYT reporter Gersh went home and cuddled with his husband.
Their inability to differentiate between a Sig MCX and an AR15 is somewhat irrelevant in light of the event. It’s a weak defense at the very least. We should be focused on the the statistics, not the semantics. IMHO.
IRONY
The muslim terrorist who shot up the homosexuals and lesbians in Orlando has done more to promote and mainstream “Gays” than any one else except Barack Obama.
The shot-up and shot-at homos and lesbians have become the darlings of America.
You can’t turn on a TV news show (including every show on FOX NEWS) without seeing some talking head gushing over some homo or idolizing them and calling them all heroes.
Mothers and fathers are being interviewed as if their queer offspring had just invented a cure for cancer or landed on Mars.
There are reportedly thousands of flower bouquets, crosses and makeshift memorials for the dead and mant millions of dollars have been donated to the Orlando GoFundMe, OneOrlandoFund and other on line donation vehicles.
Sorts teams and other organizations have announced Gay nights or events, and various local state and national government entities are flying the homo Rainbow flag.
They could have asked.
The whining about "assault weapon" and "automatic" firearms fall into the same category.
If those are the best arguments one can bring up, please stay quiet.
Even better than statistics would be a sound moral argument derived from the right of self-defense, something about which there is near universal agreement, and opposition to which exposes heartlessness and cruelty.
It seems that AR15, AK47 and Glock have become universal media shorthand for “Assault Rifles” and “scary guns”.
The constant leftist mantra has schooled a certain portion of the population to have a Pavlovian response to those terms so why cloud the issue with specifics and unfamiliar terminology?
We should focus on the fact that the previous AWB did not ultimately reduce gun homicide:
we should be discussing the overall decrease in gun homicides that has occurred despite the overall increase in the gun supply:
We should be discussing the fact that accidental deaths by firearms have been declining for years despite the increase in the number of firearms:
We should be discussing the fact that property crime is lower than ever despite record numbers of firearms and firearms owners in America:
We should also point out that the UK firearms ban hasn't reduced the incidence of homicide at all but, rather, it increased dramatically initially:
etc, etc...
AR-15. Been on the market since 1962. No one wanted them as they were not powerful enough to take down an elk or deer.
Then in the late 1970s, when the media was demonizing handguns and blessing rifles, the media began to have lots of AR-15s and AR-180s in their shows and got the ball rolling on people wanting them!
They seem to forget that back in the 1950s, the TV westerns got people to wanting the old obsolete .45 Peacemaker handgun, so several companies began making that style again.
Meanwhile, I am holding out for a Phased Plasma Rifle in a 40 Watt range.
In another shooting not long ago the media could not differentiate between an AR-15 and a pump shotgun.
“I agree. Silly pedantic concerns, like the difference between “magazine” and “clip” distract from real arguments and look petty. The whining about “assault weapon” and “automatic” firearms fall into the same category. If those are the best arguments one can bring up, please stay quiet.”
Thank you. Nitpicking insignificant details is pointless and a sure sign you have a weak argument. Like pointing out spelling or grammar errors, “You misspelled a word, therefore your comment is invalid”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.