Skiprr wrote:And that's just as hilarious as the first "article."TVGuy wrote:He wrote a follow-up because of all the hate mail he was getting:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2674555
Um, Mr. Kuntzman, you do realize that the AR-15 was first manufactured in 1959 by ArmaLite? The design was sold to Colt, and the first semi-automatic civilian model began sale in 1963. Your "today's high-powered weaponry" has been on sale to civilians for 53 years, and uses what is termed an "intermediate cartridge," which by definition is a cartridge that is less powerful and has significantly reduced recoil than a typical full-power battle rifle cartridge.Kuntzman wrote:In all my years in journalism — coming up on 30 (thanks) — I have never received so much angry mail as I did after yesterday's story...
I don't mind spirited debate, but many correspondents told me that even expressing an opinion about today's high-powered weaponry is off-limits to those of us who don't own such guns.
Well, no. Of course you don't realize that.
Mr. Kuntzman, first, as a journalist with 30 years of experience, I'm sure you know you don't need the extra "i" in the word "similar." Second, you do realize that many prefer the AR-15 as a home defense tool over even a 9mm handgun because the .223 round from the AR-15 is much less likely to over-penetrate sheetrock walls in homes and apartments? And you do realize that a bazooka is completely recoilless because it fires a rocket-propelled payload? Propellant gases escape out the rear of the tube at the moment of ignition, mitigating any recoil.Kuntzman wrote:To reiterate, the goal of the story was simply to share with readers my experience of firing an AR-15, which very few of them have done. I found the sheer power of the weapon horrifying. I found the noise deafening and anxiety provoking. I was frightened by its potential for rapid, catastrophic, Orlando-like carnage with similiar [sic] weaponry. Using an AR-15 made me irritable and jittery for hours afterwards. To me, it felt like a bazooka.
Well, no. Of course you don't realize that.
Mr. Kuntzman, you do realize that the AR-15 is strictly a civilian firearm? It is incapable of automatic fire. One trigger pull, one round goes out the front (called the "muzzle," by the way). The U.S. military uses the M16 rifle, which is capable of select fire, also known as automatic fire. The AR-15 only looks like the M16. Our military does not use the AR-15 rifle, and for a civilian to obtain an M16 is extremely difficult and extremely expensive. We're talking a purchase price of well over $10,000 and special federal government licensing and registration. Too, automatic firearms that were manufactured after 1986 cannot be sold to a regular civilian, period.Kuntzman wrote:Yes, this weapon scared the [mild profanity deleted] out of me. And it should scare the [mild profanity deleted] out of all of you, too. An AR-15 is a weapon of mass destruction, a tool that should only be in the hands of our soldiers and cops. I don't think there's anything unmanly about pointing out this fact.
Well, no. Of course you don't realize that.
Mr. Kuntzman, you do realize that, under current law, a civilian must go to extraordinary lengths to obtain and license many types of firearms? Google the National Firearms Act. Existing federal (and don't forget individual states) laws do, in fact, provide very strict regulations based upon type and function of weapons and accessories. Your frightening AR-15 fires a projectile that is a massive and devastating three one-thousandths (0.003) of an inch thicker than the .22 plinkers you may have shot at balloons at a carnival in your youth...well, not you, but a kid of your generation who grew up somewhere in the other 97% of the United States. Yet even it cannot be purchased in an automatic model unless the gun was manufactured before 1986, unless your state permits the purchase with laws that may be stricter than federal, unless you are willing to spend thousands and thousands of dollars for the purchase, and unless you obtain all licenses and registrations required by the federal government and your state. There are already restrictions by weapon-type in place in federal and state laws.Kuntzman wrote:But what if a weapons manufacturer could fashion a handgun that would fire a nuclear blast — an atomic version of an AR-15, if you will. It would look like a gun, but it could kill thousands instead of dozens. Like a rifle, it's one of many arms that we are allowed to keep and bear. But would we really stand idly by as people buy a nuclear gun in the name of the Second Amendment?
To jump to an analogy of a handgun that shoots an atomic bomb as a way to illustrate the Second Amendment as flawed? To make the baffling fail in logic that it would be "one of many arms that we are allowed to keep and bear"? Well, Mr. Kuntzman, that finally did peg my idiocy meter all the way into the red. And I leave to your own devices, misspellings, misprisions, and blatant stupidity.
Good luck with that.
I would hope that you sent that to him. His knowledge is just short of half baked when it comes to firearms...But what can one expect coming from a writer like him.
