Members of the media generally don't know much about guns.

In and of itself, that's not a big deal. Reporters aren't supposed to be experts on things. They're supposed to talk to experts. They're just supposed to report on the facts.

However, reporters editorialize way too much these days. Again, this might not be an issue, but they do so while not being experts on the subjects they're editorializing about. When it comes to guns, it can get downright hilarious when they do it.

Yes, the assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump is a serious matter, but The Independent's reporting of a purchase made by the would-be assassin just hours before his attempt is nothing to take seriously.

The suspected Trump rally shooter bought 50 rounds of ammunition, hours before carrying out the attack, according to a report.

Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, was identified by law enforcement as the gunman who attempted to assassinate the former president at his campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania on Saturday evening.

Senior law enforcement officials told CNN that Crooks bought a large amount of ammo from a local gun store shortly before the attack.

So which is it? Did he buy 50 rounds of ammo or did he buy a large amount?

Trick question, because in the mind of the author of the above section, they're the same thing. 

Now, as any gun person would tell you, 50 rounds is not a lot of ammunition. In fact, most handgun ammo isn't available for purchase in sizes less than 50 rounds. 

I and a lot of other people take more than 50 rounds to the range just to make it worth my time to shoot. I prefer to buy ammo by the thousands of rounds just because a decent trip to the range burns through hundreds of rounds.

Yet what happened here is a reporter saw the number 50 and thought, "That seems like a large number." She didn't bother to reach out to literally anyone who might be familiar with firearms to see if it was or not. She simply made the assumption based on her own understanding, which is pathetically limited in this instance. And that's me giving her the benefit of the doubt and operating on the assumption this wasn't a willful misrepresentation, which I can't swear it wasn't.

This isn't unusual, either.

Look at the rhetoric in the media about the AR-15, the supposed uber-gun that can murder-death-kill people by the truckload and make helicopters explode. Never mind that it's a .22 caliber round that is illegal for hunting because it's too small to humanely kill a deer. They "report"--or, more accurately, editorialize--about things they know nothing about simply because it feels right.

They don't know what they're talking about.

We do. 

If you want to support media that actually understands firearms and isn't interested in letting the mainstream media get away with blatantly misrepresenting facts like what constitutes a "large amount" of ammunition, then consider getting one of our VIP memberships. Your membership will help support media that actually understands guns and gun rights, and isn't interested in pushing the gun-grabber agenda through misrepresentations.If you use promo code X, you can get Y percent off, too!