I didn't say anything about validating fears, I'm saying those fears would exist without the media.

And that is EXACTLY what this means:

You, on the other hand, brought up the subject by Rhetorically asking why people need to listen to the media to validate their fear of killing machines.

And indeed the subject IS and has been Validating Fears through the media, or the Lack of such a Validation, two sides of the same coin.

Your side is the one that first brought up media.

And? Please tell me what that means.

"...opening the discussion directly on THINGS by themselves." Yes ,this is what you keep accusing me of, but I am not doing, that is a stawman.

No, that is what you did indeed, and there is nothing to interpret. The first sentence is clearly ONLY about things themselves and specifically the Fear of things in themselves. Your first sentence posited that things in themselves don't need the media to reinforce a fear of. Your next sentence "?If I approached you with an axe in a threatening way, would you only be afraid if you had seen a person killed with an axe somewhere?" leaves the premise of the fear of things aside for the premise that people don't need a previous strikingly or somewhat similar experience of fear/threat to feel threatened/afraid.

There is no way to connect your first thought of the people not needing the media to fear guns (implying that they naturally fear guns) with your second thought of Threatening people with Weapons. So people naturally fear guns because other people use them in aggressive ways?

Moving on, when I remarked on your opinion, it's not a "strawman" or an opinion. Presenting guns almost exclusively in "battling bad guys" usually with the outcome always that the bad guy is killed because he's using a Gun and generally involving numerous casualties and disregard for the public by either side, is not Glorifying Guns. It's reinforcing people's irrational Fear of guns by presenting them Fantastic scenarios involving unprecedented violence by guns as a righteous response. Phlease, all they are glorifying is the violence itself and you call that Glorifying guns, you think that presenting guns in that light is telling people that Guns are Good, Righteous or that the Supposed good guys and their response with guns is Good and Righteous, or simply that The Good guys are Good and Righteous despite being neither good or righteous but acted clearly careless, capricious and many times with pettiness, selfishness and wanton excess of force at the expense of everyone else in relentless pursuit of "righteousness". Phleaze, do you even know the difference between those nuances, from simply the Glorification of Violence to the Glorification of Guns?