The New York Times' Editorial Board ran an op-ed over the weekend calling out Republicans and their stance of defending AR-15s, but the "newspaper of record" failed to do basic research while talking about the rifle.
In the featured image for their gun-grabbing piece, the Times used shotgun shells, which AR-15s overwhelmingly do not fire. Shotguns are also not mentioned in their op-ed.
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
Due to the AR-15 platform's versatility, there are versions that are designed to fire shotgun shells, but the incidents the Times used to justify being against the firearm all involved the standard rifle version.
The Times' Editorial Board admitted while AR-15s are here to stay, there are gun control measures that can be enacted to restrict its use, despite the fact handguns are used in a majority of crimes when a firearm is used:
States and the federal government should also pass far tougher regulations on the gun industry, particularly through restrictions on the marketing of guns, which have helped supercharge the cult of the AR-15. New York’s law, which allows parties like victims of gun violence and the state government to sue gun sellers, manufacturers and distributors, is a good model for other states to follow.
Industry’s marketing practices, which are becoming more deadly and deranged by the year. They have the legal authority to do so but, thus far, not the will to act.
Americans are going to live with a lot of guns for a long time. There are already more than 415 million guns in circulation, including 25 million semiautomatic military-style rifles. Calls for confiscating them — or even calls for another assault weapons ban — are well intentioned and completely unrealistic.
The reason for pointing what seems like an inconsequential mistake is because by not doing basic research, such as what an AR-15 even shoots, how can there be trust Times did basic fact checking other arguments in the article? There can be no trust if laziness is applied to selecting a photo.
