Connect with us

Uncategorized

How to Lie About Guns, New York Times Style

Published

on

Pictured: NYT reporter explaining gun laws, c. 2021, colorized

One of the easiest ways to lie and not get sued for libel is to simply do so through exclusion. The New York Times is famous for this and if you don’t know enough about guns they can make things sound pretty bad, just by leaving out a little bit of information. In the wake of the Kyle Rittenhouse Verdict we ought to brush up on the tactics of far-left media. To do so, we simply just need to look to the past. Back in March of 2021, I found an article so egregious that I decided to go ahead and fill in the blanks. I believe the resulting work should be saved and used to inform anybody who is arguing for more gun control without all of the facts. For reference the original article can be found here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/24/us/ruger-ar-556-boulder-shooting.html

You’ll see that the author is attempting to paint Ruger’s AR-15 pistol and the 5.56 round in a darker light than it deserves.

The article opens with the basic facts and uses that tired old phrases like “military-style semiautomatic rifle and pistol.” Of course, the author leaves out that they are “military-style” in appearance only. Camouflaging a Kia doesn’t make it an M1 Abrams tank. As the piece starts to “develop,” the author also goes on to write, “Statements from the police and the charging documents did not make it clear which of the weapons was used in the attack, but it appeared at least one is a semiautomatic derivative of the assault rifles that have long been used by the American military.”

For starters, holy long sentence Batman. I had to read it a few times to keep up with it all, leaving just the catchphrases like “assault rifles” and “American military” to stand out. However, if you read it a few times you pick up what is being said. The guns being referenced are derivatives as opposed to copies because they are semi-automatic, like a common pistol. This is unlike the military’s fully automatic M4 carbines. Only folks who know guns are going to know that and only a few are going to be that dedicated to pull all of that from this poorly structured sentence.

Later on, I found what is arguably the poorest display of journalism in the entire article. The author goes on to state, “According to a police affidavit, the suspect charged with 10 counts of murder, Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, bought a Ruger AR-556 semiautomatic weapon, essentially a shortened version of an AR-15 style rifle marketed as a pistol, six days before the killings took place. It is also unclear if that weapon was used in the shooting on Monday.”

Wait…if  it’s “unclear” that this gun was used at all, why does this article include this statement? Actually, why is there even an article entitled “What we know about the gun used in the Boulder shooting” in existence? The Times didn’t need 284 words to put this piece together, thanks to this statement I can do it with just one, “Nothing.”

About halfway through is where I found the most manipulative piece of information and this is where the author states “Both the AR-15 style rifle and the Ruger version fire the same small-caliber, high-velocity ammunition, which was first developed for battlefield use.” Sure, the 5.56 was built for the military… To replace the current, larger cartridge that was regarded as uncontrollable and too powerful for common battlefield use! I’ve had enough with media like this trying to make the 5.56 round out to be some sort of baby-killing monster. It’s one of the least-potent centerfire rifle rounds on the market, considered by most to be too small even for deer hunting. Is it more powerful than a pistol round? Sure, but almost any given rifle has more power than any given handgun.

As things begin to wrap up the author proceeds to attempt to make large-format pistols look like the “ideal” tool for mass shootings where she says “Based on their size, ‘AR pistols’ are much easier to conceal than a typical AR-15 carbine or rifle. According to the manufacturer’s website, the Ruger AR-556 pistol comes with either a 9.5-inch or 10.5 inch-long barrel, while a typical AR-15 has at least a 16-inch barrel.” Pretty convenient that she left out the fact that common pistols have barrels from 2 to 6 inches and are capable of the same rate of fire and in most cases, capacity. So although an AR Pistol is easier to conceal than a rifle or shotgun, it’s far less concealable than many other semi-automatic firearms.

As a New Yorker, I have been conditioned to read between the lines and sadly that’s where you are going to find the facts in dribble like this. It’s a shame that our publication doesn’t reach the same people who read the Times, because it would be nice to give the Times’s readership a complete and balanced idea of what that this firearm is—and more importantly what it isn’t. This, my friends, is why we must remain vigilant and never shy away from the conversation. We can only change an informed mind and that duty lies squarely at our feet.

7 Comments

7 Comments

  1. Joseph DeMartino

    December 1, 2021 at 2:52 pm

    “…which was first developed for battlefield use.”

    So were the 9mm parabellum (“for war”) and the .45 ACP, two of the most common handgun rounds. So what?

    • CG

      December 1, 2021 at 8:40 pm

      I think that’s sorta the way he was writing the article, but with the caveat that the 5.56 NATO round was designed to replace a more powerful round which the original Times author, in Frank’s opinion, left out on purpose.
      Although, to be fair, common sense should show that any current military use round was designed to replace something else to ensure more lethality. (.45 ACP replaced the .38 Long Colt & 9x19mm replaced the 7.65×21 Parabellum.)

  2. Gary Evans

    December 1, 2021 at 3:08 pm

    Saw a commercial yesterday for the New York Times stating how they were “True” journalist and they were dedicated to finding the truth. Due to this ‘dedication’ we should ‘Trust’ the NY Times, HA! What a joke! They are and will always be leftist controlled media propaganda!

  3. Rip

    December 1, 2021 at 3:32 pm

    Frank, I you were to write an article about the NYT and leave out certain facts, they would be all over you…. Maybe you SHOULD write an article about the times that would put them on and keep them on the defensive, because as we all know, there’s no defending hipocracy.
    We all know that mainstream media outlets are not to be trusted. If every small conservative media outlet would continually write hit pieces on some of the big. Media outlets, maybe they would be so busy defending themselves, that they would start looking for the REASON the hit pieces were being written in the first place !
    Tell nothing but the truth, but. ONLY stop short of slander or defamation.

  4. Merriam W

    December 1, 2021 at 7:12 pm

    Drivel, not dribble.

  5. Mr Bagworm

    December 2, 2021 at 5:01 am

    It MIGHT be dribble depending on how they hold their tongue when they’re trying to come up with a sentence….

  6. Stephen

    December 2, 2021 at 4:36 pm

    Liberals… Because even God can’t fix friggen stupid!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Trending

Copyright © 2021 Brand Avalanche Media, LLC. Popular EDC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Brand Avalanche Media, LLC. This copyrighted material may not be republished without express permission. The information presented here is for general educational purposes only. MATERIAL CONNECTION DISCLOSURE: You should assume that this website has an affiliate relationship and/or another material connection to the persons or businesses mentioned in or linked to from this page and may receive commissions from purchases you make on subsequent web sites. You should not rely solely on information contained in this email to evaluate the product or service being endorsed. Always exercise due diligence before purchasing any product or service. This website contains advertisements.