Al-Jazeera Reports AR-15 Wasn’t Used In Orlando Attack, But Test Fires And Demonizes One Anyway
Dena Takruri is a host for AJ+, a branch of the Al-Jazeera Media Network, who ventured down to Orlando, Florida after the horrific Orlando shooting that left 49 people dead. It’s the worst mass shooting in U.S. history and likely the second deadliest terrorist attack since 9/11. She wanted to learn more about America’s gun culture. She found various gun stores near the Pulse nightclub, the site of the attack, but was turned away by some of these establishments—and for good reason. This is an anti-gun segment.
I fired an AR-15 rifle for the first (and hopefully last) time in Orlando and asked: How the hell are they legal? https://t.co/ZMINY3bu7J
— Dena Takruri (@Dena) June 16, 2016
She was able to interview a military veteran Frank Casanova, who owns six firearms, as he views gun ownership as a means to protect his family. Many Americans feel the same way; especially women who are the fastest growing demographic of new gun owners and shooters.
Takruri did accurately note that the Sig Sauer MCX, not the AR-15 rifle, was used in the Orlando shootings, but decided to shoot one anyway.
“I feel like I have a lot of power in my hands right now that I don’t want,” she said. Even though she said that the MCX was the rifle used in the shooting, she added that both systems are similar, but didn’t waste any time to state “the AR-15 is the weapon of choice for massacre.”
That was a lot more loud and forceful than I expected and as you can see. I’m kinda shaking right now, so. It’s personally not for me. I can say, having done this for the first time. And I think I’m also seeing it through the lens of what just happened and for that reason, I want nothing to do with rifles or any sort of firearm.
First, let’s not forget that the worst mass shooting up until Orlando was committed by handguns at Virginia Tech. Speaking in generalities, if the anti-gun Left wants to be honest about mass shootings, then they have to consider all firearms as so-called assault weapons (or “weapons of war”), but they can’t. That means taking on handguns, which Americans aren’t giving up by any stretch of the imagination, despite the fact that they’re used in the overwhelming majority of gun crimes. Long guns are not. In fact, the rate in which a rifle is used in a gun crime is minuscule. Hence why if you look at mass shootings from the last 30 years, it’s still a rare occurrence—and victims of mass shootings constitute less than 1 percent of all firearms fatalities. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t have an impact, but it does undercut the notion that we’re in the midst of some gun violence epidemic. We’re not. Gun homicides have been cut in half since 1993, when gun violence was at its worst.
So, given that long guns aren’t used a lot in crimes, why does the anti-gun Left even bother with pushing for bans on a class of firearms that is enjoyed by millions of Americans? My guess, it’s setting the stage for what they really want deep down in their hearts, which is complete and total confiscation; a task that isn’t realistic. Nevertheless, you have Hillary Clinton giving some high praise for Australian-style gun policy, which includes gun bans and confiscation.
Yet, back to AJ+, I do give these journalists credit for firing the AR-15 rifle, even though it wasn’t used in the attack, though we’re forced to fight on this hill because it’s part of the overall media narrative that this firearm is scary and more evil than all the rest. It’s not. It’s been around since the late 1950s. As Bob Owens wrote over at our sister site Bearing Arms, “Blaming the gun or even a broad family of firearms when many different firearms could have been used is incredibly dishonest. Then again, that’s what we’ve come to expect from this nation’s news media and politicians, isn’t it?”
I’m not saying that everyone should own firearms, but there are at least 300 million in circulation in this country. I view that with a sense of pride. It’s the oldest civil right we have on the books—and we should maximize it. Shooting or owning firearms obviously isn’t Takruri’s thing, which is fine. She tried it. It’s not for her. The problem is that there’s a whole wing of the political class who’s trying to infringe on that right, which is why we fight back hard, and usually win. Of course, I disagree with everything in this segment, but a least Takruri wasn’t a drama queen and didn’t get “temporary PTSD,” like this NY Daily News columnist, who apparently has had experience firing bazookas.
Last note: It’s not the most powerful rifle on the market, AJ+. A hunting rifle fires a much higher caliber round, which is why when anti-gunners say they want to take high-powered rifles off the streets, they’re pretty much screwing over hunters either knowingly or unknowingly.