Thesis: The media’s bias (and ignorance) is most clearly displayed when guns are the topic.
Supporting evidence:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/us/ar-15-gun-debate/?hpt=hp_t1 which is, as near as I can tell, a hit piece on AR-15’s, by a supposedly objective news source. Rather than a short “we were wrong, it wasn’t an AR-15” retraction (which was covered by the third paragraph - but interestingly enough, not the first or second), this rambling piece does its best to demonize that particular type of firearm:
I suspect if 100 average CNN viewers were to read this piece, 80%-90% would come away with the mistaken belief that the Navy Yard shooting involved an AR-15 (and that AR-15’s are horrible devices), which seems to me to be the intent of the authors. And why characterize the two sides like this:
I trained with and used the original AR-15, we called it an M-16 at the time.
It’s a tool designed for killing humans at close range and no other purpose, it’s not a hunting weapon.
Doesn’t meant that anybody used one in this recent mess.
The media will always get it wrong, it will always be sensationalized, and none of it will matter. The only thing that matters is the votes in Congress.
Correction: The AR-15 is absolutely a hunting firearm (it is not a weapon), and is a popular firearm for hunters across the United States, favored for its reliable design and accuracy over range. It’s also a pretty common firearm all over the world and legal in just about any country which permits almost any level of firearm ownership. The M-16 is a different device entirely, and it is a weapon. It is designed for one purpose: the kill human beings. The AR-15 is not, and is no better than most hunting rifles for that purpose.
If you want to know why I am an obnoxious stickler on that point, it’s because my father drilled that into my head while I was a child. Weapons are for killing; firearms are for sport. And I don’t care what the dictionary says because my old man would turn over in his grave, get out of it, and kick my arse down the street if I didn’t proclaim it to the world. Then again, he taught hunter education for the better part of two decades.
Edit: Also, if we have a war on guns, the smart money is on the guns. After all, they’ve got all the guns. Unless the NRA was right and guns don’t kill people…
If it shoots a tiny fast bullet out of the same short barrel as an M16 it’s going to vaporize a rabbit and be too small for deer.
I don’t know what you could plausibly hunt with an AR-15. Boar, maybe? Goats?
I’m not saying it’s the dictionary definition. I am saying my father drilled this into me. Police officers have weapons. Soldiers have weapons. You go hunting with a firearm. Call it a philosophical statement on how you become and stay mentally prepared.
…Say what? The AR-15 is quite popular with deer hunters. Coyote- and boar-hunters also like it. Sure, it’s a bit much for rabbit, but there’s much bigger game out there than rabbit and people use shotguns on hares all the time. It’s also a very popular sport-shooting firearm. I don’t have statistics handy, but IIRC it’s in the top-ten sport rifles worldwide.
“War on _____” in the same sense that “war on women” was popularized earlier this year: favoring / supporting / advocating for policies that are opposed to _____. I’m not suggesting there’s an actual shooting war, and almost no one advocates for actual physical violence and harm against the average gun owner.
BTW, I consider the whole ‘An AR-15 can’t be used for hunting’ argument to be part of the broader war on guns, although admittedly i’d probably find a lot more examples of politicians making such claims rather than the media (who I think generally have a difficult time fathoming any use for firearms).
america has a lot of catching up to do with civilized nations where guns are banned or accessible only to farmers for shooting feral animals, police and armed forces.