Recently, nydailynews.com ran an article by one Gersh Kuntzman (actual name), which equates to nothing more than anti-gun propaganda. The piece, called “What is it like to fire an AR-15? It’s horrifying, menacing and very very loud”, was conveniently posted 3 days after the Orlando nightclub shooting.
Now, the point of my post isn’t to make a pro or anti gun argument, but merely to call out blatant propaganda for what it is. The article by Kuntzman clearly comes across as a propaganda piece.
Our buddy Gersh went to a shooting range in Pennsylvania in order to shoot the media’s big, bad, scary scapegoat, the AR-15. Now, he acknowledges in the article, that the Orlando shooter didn’t even use an AR-15, but most in the anti-gun camp wouldn’t know the difference between an AR-15 and a toaster. They recognize the name AR-15, because it’s become the poster child of sorts for the fear-driven, anti-gun side of the weapons debate.
It seems very likely that this particular shooting range was selected due to the owners rather liberal views on gun ownership. The article states that many gun shops turned down the request to have a journalist and cameraman show up to discuss the much demonized AR-15 rifle. Not guns in general, mind you, but the AR-15 specifically. Any shooting range in their right mind would have turned down this request, under the assumption that the article that resulted would be nothing more than an anti-gun propaganda piece. Anti-gun propaganda isn’t exactly great business for shooting ranges.
The article then proceeds to spout off numerous bits of erroneous information, and conflicting statements.
Mr Kuntzman states that he’s fired pistols before, but “never something like an AR-15”. This implies to the reader that the AR-15 is a powerful beast of a weapon, far removed from your average pistol. It isn’t however. The rounds that a run-of-the-mill AR-15 fires are actually not very powerful rounds. To give you an example of the power we’re talking about, there are clips on youtube of young children firing this weapon without problem. It’s actually illegal in some states to hunt deer with the .223 Remington round that an AR-15 fires, because the round isn’t thought to be powerful enough to humanely hunt something the size of a deer. The point of hunting is to kill the animal, not give it a wound it can show off to its friends for the next week. This ammo is generally considered more of a round for hunting animals up to coyote size.
It seems as though either Mr. Kuntzman a) has never fired a gun of any type before, or b) is grossly over-exaggerating the power of the AR-15 for sensational effect. I can’t for the life of me figure out why this man would need to exaggerate the power of the AR-15 for this unbiased article. c) That was probably sarcasm.
He claims the recoil of the gun bruised his shoulder. This gun and round combination is actually known for having a relatively tame recoil. Its low recoil is one of its main selling features. Once again, young children can be seen shooting this gun on youtube.
He states how the shell casings flying out of the gun disoriented him, and that the “smell of sulfer and destruction” made him sick. With all due respect, these revelations merely make it seem as though Gersh is probably a little too soft to be firing weapons in the first place. Some people get sea-sick on boats, and those people tend to stay away from boats as a result. Other people aren’t cut out for riding on roller coasters and should probably stick to the teacup ride. If you practically get a case of the vapours and faint, like a colonial woman, firing guns maybe isn’t the thing for you.
Perhaps most telling of all, he claims that the explosions, “loud like a bomb” gave him PTSD. PTSD being that anxiety disorder that people who have been in actual traumatic situations get. Situations like warfare, plane crashes, or rape. Yet somehow this fragile, porcelain doll of a man had PTSD after merely firing a gun. Once again, a gun you can watch small children firing on the internet. Either he doesn’t understand what PTSD is, or is once again exaggerating.
This begs the question. Is our buddy Gersh a complete joke of a man-child, or are all of these claims fabricated merely for sensationalism. First off, the site this article appears on has a massive anti-gun bias. Three of the 5 articles in the “most popular” section as of this writing, are about “assault weapons” and the NRA. Secondly, the video that accompanies the article doesn’t portray a man who was shaken from firing a gun. He actually comes across as reasonable and even keeled. Viewing the video alone doesn’t give off the impression of a man who felt uncomfortable shooting a gun.
I can’t help but feel that Mr. Kuntzman had an agenda from the start to try to demonize a particular gun. It’s obvious that the man knows little to nothing about guns, and is merely writing a feelings-based sensation piece. He actually refers to this gun as a “weapon of mass destruction” and proclaims that it only belongs in the hands of those in the military.
The problem is, the military would never use a gun like the AR-15. As previously stated, the gun is relatively weak by gun standards, but is also only semi-automatic. The military wouldn’t bother carrying a gun this size unless it was fully automatic, or able to be switched between semi and fully automatic. A stock AR-15 is probably a little too weak for military application as well. Remember that it typically isn’t even used for deer hunting.
Regardless, Mr. Kuntzman received a substantial amount of blowback from the article, from people who were either able to see through the bullshit, or outright accused him of being a pussy. I don’t think it makes one weak for not being into firing guns, but it does make one weak for engaging in misleading propaganda.
I’m not even a “gun guy”, but it annoys me to no end when I see uneducated and misleading journalism around every corner these days. Maybe I’m off base to expect a little truth and integrity from people who have made their living as reporters. Reporters are supposed to educate, and not mislead. Everything I know about guns comes from doing research on the topic, the same way I come to learn about any topic. There’s no reason somebody with the title of “reporter” or “journalist” shouldn’t be putting in the effort to research topics just as well.
Every anti-gun article I read is from someone who obviously couldn’t be bothered to do any research on the subject of guns. Otherwise the same inaccurate data wouldn’t be getting passed off time and time again. Things like the “AR” in AR-15 standing for assault rifle. The AR actually stands for ArmaLite Rifle, the company that makes the AR series of guns, which have been around since the 50’s. The term assault rifle refers to a weapon that has the ability to fire fully automatic, or at very least, burst fire. No civilian weapons legally able to be sold actually meet this criteria.
Any gun you can legally purchase as a civilian will be semi-automatic, meaning you have to pull the trigger once for every time a bullet is fired. Just about every handgun, including revolvers, are semi-automatic guns. The AR-15 is semi-automatic too. It just looks scarier to some folks because it’s modeled after military-style weapons. If a gun isn’t fully or semi-automatic, that means its single-fire, and you need to manually load a round after each firing, just like they used to do back in your great great great granddaddy’s day.
One more thing. Before I go, the term magazine and clip refer to two different things, and aren’t interchangeable, and silencers don’t actually exist; they are called suppressors. Peace.
Apparently another reporter tried to write a sensationalized hit piece against guns the day after Mr Kuntzman’s failed attempt, and failed even more spectacularly. Another unscrupulous reporter (are there any other kinds of reporters these days?) by the name of Neil Steinberg went out to gun shop in Chicago to purchase a gun. What type of gun did he try to buy? I’m sure you can make an educated guess. That’s right! An AR-15. The official gun of goofy, middle-aged, cringy, progressive men writing propaganda pieces.
Turns out he was denied making the purchase after a background check showed that he had a history of both alcoholism and domestic abuse. The very background checks that guys like this push mistruths of either not existing, or being ineffective, were quite effective in blocking him from purchasing a gun.
“Isn’t it ironic” -Alanis Morrisette (1995)
All these hack reporters set out to sway public opinion further against guns, only to make it even more evident that their stances on the subject don’t have very stable foundations. The background check worked exactly as it should have in keeping this guy from obtaining a weapon. In the eyes of the gun store, it would have been a liability to have an individual with a history of violence and substance abuse obtaining an gun.
But of course he refuses to accept that fact, and he ends the article by conspiratorially stating that he was actually denied the gun because he was a reporter. Because evidently gun stores have an agenda of suppressing (+5 Gun Pun Points™) the truth about guns by preventing hack journalists from purchasing them in order to write hit pieces. The complete and utter lack of self awareness here is astounding.