Journalist and sportscaster Bryant Gumbel unfortunately decided to follow in the footsteps of so many before him on a recent episode of HBO’s “Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel.”
Gumbel used his show to cast doubt on the validity of sports shooting with AR-15s.
The series usually delves into stories around the world of sports. However, this episode found Gumbel exploiting his platform to attack and vilify gun owners and the sport of rifle shooting. Specifically, he set his sights on what is arguably the most misunderstood weapon to be owned by civilians: the AR-15.
Focusing his attention on the specific firearm and its place among competitive shooters, Gumbel made his opinion on the weapon known very quickly.
“I’m talking about a gun now known as the AR-15, a weapon designed for wartime, but one that has somehow morphed into one of the most popular pieces of so-called sports equipment … Under that guise, millions of AR-15s have been sold in recent years, primarily for people who claim to want them to hunt or compete in target shooting. But AR-15s have also played an ugly role in the mass shootings that have become all too commonplace throughout this country,” Gumbel opened with on his show, making it very clear we were in for an ill-informed lecture rather than any sort of serious reporting.
Inviting experts such as Jim Sullivan (one of the original designers of the AR-15), the episode tried to make its argument clear and simple: The AR-15 is a military grade weapon not meant for civilians, but being pushed upon them by gun companies.
Gumbel and his team pointed to the connection between the standard military rifles of the M-16 and the M-4 and the fact that the AR-15 is merely a civilian counterpart with only slight differences. Correspondent David Scott went on about the lethality of the AR-15 with Jim Sullivan. Scott claimed the 5.56 round, which the AR-15 takes (it can also take .223) was a big and dangerous round meant only to “kill people.”
[lz_jwplayer video=”1Jxytd5f”]
“It’s more lethal than any cartridge that was fired by any army in history,” Sullivan added. Gumbel and company continued preaching their tired arguments and making blanket statements for the entirety of the episode showing little interest in ever giving weight to the arguments on the other side.
The reporting not only loses Gumbel and his team credibility as reporters (more on this later), but it is also another dangerous piece to a picture clearly spelling out an America where the media and certain elites are using blanket statements and falsehoods to dangerously vilify lawful gun-owners. To say Gumbel and his team’s arguments didn’t have proper footing is a massive understatement.
Yes, the AR-15 is in many ways a civilian counterpart to the military M-16; however, the major difference between the two happens to be what makes a clear distinction. A civilian AR-15 shoots semi-automatic (meaning one round for every trigger pull) while an M-16 has the capability to shoot more for every one trigger pull. This is what is known as full automatic.
The point is also rather moot when establishing a relationship between a military rifle and civilian rifle. Military and civilian weapons have always had a relationship. There’s the Remington 700 (once used by military snipers and still used by civilian hunters), the Mini-14 is a civilian counterpart to the M-14 — the list goes on and on.
The other claim about the 5.56 round being a deadly man-killer holds little weight. The round is small compared to many others. It’s specifically meant to wound and incapacitate in wartime rather than kill. This is what you are taught when learning about your rifle in the military, something Gumbel and his team seem to know little about.
Next to the episode’s various falsehoods being waved as journalism, there was also blatant negligence and deceptive tactics used that other journalists should be shaking their heads at, no matter their opinions on the AR-15.
Jim Sullivan, the man used in the episode to add weight to the argument that the “deadly” AR-15 should be kept out of civilian hands, has already come out and complained that the producers edited his remarks to convey an opinion that was not correct.
It’s not the first time deceptive editing has been used in the face of basic journalistic standards.
“[As] predicted, the anti-gun HBO Sports interview misrepresented much of what I had said. They were apparently trying to make the AR-15 civilian model seem too dangerous for civilian sales. They didn’t lie about what I said, they just omitted key parts which changed the meaning,” Sullivan said, after his remarks drew complaints from gun advocates.
One example: “When I appear to say that the civilian model AR-15 is just as effective or deadly as the military M-16 they omitted that I had said ‘when firing-semi auto only’ and that the select fire M-16 on full auto is of course more effective.”
It’s not the first time deceptive editing has been used in the face of basic journalistic standards. Katie Couric recently used heavy editing in her gun control documentary, “Under the Gun,” to make gun owners look the way she wanted: clueless and borderline dangerous.
Gumbel is only the latest in a long line of media personalities using their platforms to preach without reason and fact, but rather with general emotion, elitism, and politics. The media have too long ignored things like the violent crime rate being at an all-time low and issues like mental health in favor of attacking something lawful citizens use.
What’s more problematic than the untrustworthy actions of Gumbel, Couric, and others trying to influence public opinion through pop culture and media tricks is the distaste and venom with which Gumbel and his peers speak about gun owners.
Gumbel used his show to cast doubt on the validity of sports shooting with AR-15s. He implied gun owners were dangerous and only “claim to want them to hunt or compete in target shooting.” He connects them to mentally unstable individuals who needed help beyond what they carried in their hands. It’s like being compared to a drunk driver because you own the same car.
Mr. Gumbel, I’m a gun owner. Though you see little reason for me and others to own an AR-15, this is America, where you don’t need to understand everything your neighbor does.
Since the “why” is always an argument the media likes to use against AR-15 owners, let me give you the why. I bought my AR-15 with a group of friends. We were all soldiers in the same Army Reserve unit. Only having the opportunity to shoot once or twice a year, we made our purchases and with private practice, we became better soldiers, better shots, and better friends.
I know many others who own AR-15s as well. Some wear uniforms, some don’t. They are not the dangerous individuals or pawns of gun manufacturers Mr. Gumbel likes to believe they are. They are men and women who have their various reasons for exercising their Second Amendment rights. Some are competitive shooters (yes, Bryant, it is a thing). Some even find therapeutic help through the focus and care that can come with rifle shooting (this is used to help many dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder).
The reasons are endless, but they are there. These people are not killers, and many of them care far more for people and their country than those arguing with vitriol against their right to own a civilian weapon.
Join the Discussion
Comments are currently closed.