Really?
Who established this,
when did they do it,
and what standard of judgment did they use to determine credibility?
You don't have to write out an answer, a link to the scholarly source or other citation would be acceptable.
You speak of the media as a single entity, which couldn't be further from the truth. The press is not for or against guns. Authors may be, a particular news company may be, but saying that any a particular portrayal is hypocritical to the methods of "the press" is akin to saying that all gun owners are irresponsible rednecks, and those who aren't are hypocrites since (as we already established) all gun owners are irresponsible rednecks.
The only way this article can be considered hypocritical would be if the same author also editorialized about guns not being necessary for protection.
"Because of MS13, Charlie carries a revolver (yeah, I know you'd need more firepower)."
Really?
Who established this, when did they do it, and what standard of judgment did they use to determine credibility? You don't have to write out an answer, a link to the scholarly source or other citation would be acceptable.
Warrants are neither proof nor evidence, and only serve to mislead the less informed.