fbpx
Back
[wppb-recover-password redirect_url="/test"]

Jim Sullivan: HBO Misrepresented AR-15 Development

Though the late Eugene Stoner is most commonly associated with Armalite’s development of the Armalite Rifle 15, or AR-15, he was just one of several designers to work on the project. Another developer, Jim Sullivan, worked with Stoner to scale the .30 caliber AR-10 down to the smaller 5.56mm NATO round and ultimately create the AR-15 series of rifles. Sullivan, a respected engineer in his own right, was also behind the Stoner 63 and Mini 14 rifles, making him one of the most successful small arms designers of the 1960s.

Last week, HBO’s Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel interviewed Sullivan about the AR-15. A rather questionable interview for a show supposedly about sports, Gumbel’s program used Sullivan’s words to paint a picture that AR-15s and similar rifles are not suited for civilian possession and use. Much like the VCDL was dissatisfied with the editing in Katie Couric’s “Under the Gun,” Sullivan has revealed that creative post-production work by HBO distorted his message.

In an article published this morning by the Federalist, Sullivan writes that “[t]he anti-gun HBO sports interview misrepresented much of what [Sullivan] had said. They were apparently trying to make the AR-15 civilian model seem too dangerous for civilian sales.” Specifically, Sullivan states that HBO ignored his distinctions between the exclusively semi-automatic AR-15 and the select-fire, military M16. The producers also apparently ignored or misunderstood Sullivan’s comparison between the 5.56mm ammunition used in the AR-15 and more powerful, traditional hunting rounds. Specifically, Sullivan writes:

But 5.56 can’t complete with hunting cartridge bullets, which can legally be expanding hollow point that are more lethal than tumbling. Their lethality is based entirely on how powerful they are. 5.56 is only half as powerful as the 7.62 NATO (.308) hunting bullet. That doesn’t mean I’m not pleased to see AR-15s sell on the civilian market. It just means I didn’t realize they would 57 years ago. And I’m not on the wrong side of any gun issue unless someone wants to argue that an infantry rifle cartridge should kill a cavalry horse at 1,000 yards (30-06 criteria).

In the course of just two weeks, we now have two examples of misleading edits from media outlets that claim to be “fairly” representing the gun control argument. While it is encouraging to see some of these bad actors called out for their manipulative work, the growing trend should serve as a warning to those who would volunteer to be interviewed. As always, tread carefully.

Loading more posts ...