So NY Times

[Speedo66]

So here's this attractive female artist/chef who is interviewed for a Times article because she's shot a couple of birds and cooked them, and uses the remains in her art.

She admits breaking laws twice, once in illegally living in a reserved apartment, and also for illegally importing fresh game from Europe. That's OK, the Times has her back. She also admits to hunting and owning a gun, items which normally would have brought the full wrath of the NY Times down upon anyone else. Oh, but she's an artist, so all is OK.

NY Times, you hypocrites!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/d...-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

 

[ACP]

Looks to me like a positive story about an artist who also happens to be a pretty prolific hunter, and who uses her hunting as the foundation of some of her art.

What's not to like about personalizing a person who owns a shotgun and likes to hunt?

I think it's a positive story for gun owners.

Now, if you're looking for negativity, feel free to troll through any of a variety of THR posts... may I suggest the recent one about FBI load testing?

 

[FiveStrings]

Ditto ACP - I agree it's a positive story for gun owners and hunters.

Oh, and for negative silliness, may I also recommend the recent THR thread on concealed vs. open carry while hiking. That one was special.

 

[Jeff H]

Ditto ACP - I agree it's a positive story for gun owners and hunters.

+1 nothing more to add.

 

[Speedo66]

Of course it's a positive article, it's just that it's so hypocritical for the Times. It reminds me of when they did an article on some hipsters who took up hunting because they suddenly discovered, sort of like Columbus discovering America to the amazement of the natives, that hunting produced all the buzzwords foodies love. I.E., free range, low fat, organic, local, etc.

Hunters have known this for generations, but it wasn't until the hipsters "discovered" it, that the Times would run a positive hunting or shooting article.

 

[wadcutter45]

Some people just thrive on finding the negatives, especially if it is something they want to hate

 

[herrwalther]

I can't agree with this article. This is just another example of it is okay for a select "few" to have firearms but not "everybody." NYC is one of the most strict firearm localities in the country. But this woman is allowed a seemingly free pass because she is an artist? Big deal! What about the 7/11 clerk who has been robbed 7 times who can't get a carry permit? Oh well too bad, try illegally killing birds in the city limits and then cooking them. We might let that slide.

 

[Capybara]

You read the NYTimes? Why bother with that Commie rag? That's like getting getting worked up because criminals commit crimes.

 

[Baron_Null]

It's an article that relates the utility as well as the deeper meaning behind hunting that puts it in a way that people who weren't raised around hunting can understand. It puts a different perspective on what is often considered to be immoral by relating it to art and emotion.

People on this board are always complaining that with modern life and the population density being what it is, people aren't exposed to hunting as much as they used to. This article exposes people to hunting in a way that doesn't play into their cognitive bias against hunters, and that's a bad thing?

 

[Speedo66]

Years ago, OK, maybe decades ago, the Times had a regular sportsman's column on Sundays I used to read. Good articles about, say, bird hunting in Mexico, sport fishing in the Bahama's, etc. Suddenly hunting wasn't PC and they dropped the column.

Their core readership is quite liberal, and they probably found the hunting articles distasteful. So regular sports hunter and shooter readers were persona non grata at the Times.

Enter the "artist" who shoots birds and uses parts of the bird in her art. She will no doubt be held to the bosom of the readership because she does it for art's sake.

Sorry if I find the fickle readership and editorial bent disingenuous. I also find the Times glorifying her bringing unprocessed game into the country repulsive. There are good reasons why laws prohibiting that are in effect. I guess to the Times wrapping it in cute paper makes it OK.

 

[ACP]

Speedo, I agree with you it is hypocritical and that, yes, the NYT does not need to show us an artist who also hunts to let everyone knows that a) hunting is okay and b) firearms can be used responsibly. I guess my expectations for them are so low I am happy for any shred of objectivity or positivity when it comes to firearms ownership and use.