The only hint of something that might constitute a reference to the current media discourse is the following grossly defensively toned paragraph:

> Although, according to CBS News, "the AR plays an oversized role in many of the most high-profile shootings",[41] most killings by guns in the USA involve handguns rather than rifles.[42][43]

The statistic on handgun shootings is irrelevant as the paragraph is quoting CBS on "high-profile shootings". Only a single CBS article is referenced (there's tonnes out there), with two counter-references accompanying the irrelevant handgun mention.

Even ignoring all that, the very fact that the paragraph starts with the word "Although" belies its intent.

Funnily enough, the mentioning of the school shootings in which ARs were used actually seems superfluous. A balanced, unbiased article might exclude that section completely, but instead have a Controversy heading with something like:

"In 2018, following a, b, c events, this model became the subject of widespread pubic controversy in the US and worldwide due to x, y, z. {insert arguments espoused on both sides of media discourse}"

I agree with you on every point. My guess is that the idea was to link to more complete information by having direct links to the "mass shootings" article, the Australian legislature, and the shootings involving AR-15 clones, but the cultural relevance isn't mentioned and it all seems underdeveloped, especially with the dismissive handgun paragraph and bizarrely specific/niche Religion mention under it.