Gersh Kuntzman doubles down on fear of the AR-15

Gersh Kuntzman doubles down on fear of the AR-15

Gersh Kuntzman doubles down on fear of the AR-15

NY Daily News’ Gersh Kuntzman has felt the sting of ridicule, and he has responded as any girly-man would. For the second day in a row he wrote the stupidest thing on the internet. He has decided that, in fact, being a girl might be better than being a man.

Yes, I’m a wimp. I simpered because my experience with the AR-15 bruised me, body and spirit. But there’s nothing unmanly about reminding my readers that mass murder is much easier to commit with a semi-automatic killing machine than it is with a hammer.

If that makes me a girl, well, maybe we should have a girl running the country.

Well no secret who he’s voting for.

Yesterday Gersh made a complete fool of himself when he reported he was terrified after firing an AR-15 rifle. I personally took part in the ridicule. My VG sisters can verify that I felt kinda bad, but sometimes a slap of reality is called for, if not to educate the moron, then to at least straighten out the misinformation.

girly-man-arnold

Twitter was the most popular vehicle for righting Gersh’s hysterical reaction to shooting a gun, which included him claiming to suffer from a temporary case of PTSD.

Sorry dude, you totally brought this on yourself.

After yesterday's sustained ridicule, Gersh Kuntzman questions whether he is using the right restroom.
After yesterday’s sustained ridicule, Gersh Kuntzman questions whether he is using the right restroom.

In his column today Gersh complains about how his gender was questioned because of having an opinion. It’s not the opinion per se, it’s the completely wimpy-fied reaction to a gun that was the problem. That this opinion emanated from a person of the male gender only made it that much more comical. I’ve got a lot of lady friends who think the same way, so the shaming is not coming from only our testosterone laden brothers. It’s totally gender neutral shaming.

Gersh is ultimately just confused. He claims that he is a Second Amendment supporter (“under strict regulations”) but then also calls the NRA a bully. He says we can’t even debate guns in this country because the gun lobby shuts down First Amendment rights.

Besides, if masculinity is defined by the power to commit violence on a wide scale, I proudly choose femininity. At one time, “being a man” meant standing up for what you believe in — and against injustice. By that definition, we need more real men in power taking on bullies like the NRA, which seeks to bolster the Second Amendment by shutting down opponents’ right to the First. We can’t even debate guns in this country, thanks to the gun lobby.

Being a lefty, he should know all about shutting down free speech rights. In my post yesterday, admittedly, I told him to shut his mouth – but it’s because his position was so misinformed, uneducated, and overdramatized that it could not be taken seriously.

Once these liberals acknowledge that taking away my gun, and making restrictions upon my Second Amendment right will do NOTHING to stop a mass murder, then we can talk. Keep coming at me with the unspoken and hidden agenda of confiscation, and you are going to continue to get the hand.

Talk to the Hand
Talk to the Hand

As many others pointed out since yesterday, the AR and other rifles like it are probably the easiest rifles to shoot. They, in no way, compare to shot guns, deer rifles, or even the famed Desert Eagle handgun that shoots large caliber rounds, up to .50 AE.

Oh hell:

I fault whomever was supervising or accompanying Gersh because no one properly prepared him to have a good shooting experience. He is fear mongering.

Yes, this weapon scared the crap out of me. And it should scare the crap 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, as Rep. Seth Moulton wrote in the Daily News on Tuesday. I don’t think there’s anything unmanly about pointing out this fact.

Every firearm can be used in a dangerous and unsafe manner. This is not news – and applies to any number of objects that we encounter on a daily basis. But there is nothing inherently more dangerous about an AR than any other firearm. It is all in how it is used. The FBI statistics from 2014 bear out the fact that murders by rifles and shot guns rank behind murders from handguns, blunt objects, knifes, and hand and feet. From Hot Air:

In 2014, the last year for which we have complete data, the FBI recorded 248 homicides by rifles and 262 by shotguns, both the lowest in the previous five years. Rifles accounted for just two percent of all homicides. More than twice as many homicides were committed by “personal weapons,” such as hands, fists, feet, and so on (660), and almost twice as many by blunt instrument (435). Knives and cutting instruments accounted for 16.4% of all homicides, eight times as many as rifles. It’s also worth pointing out that murders overall declined in every year from 2010 to 2014, including murders by firearms, without a so-called “assault weapons” ban. (Also worth noting: Handgun homicides dropped by 9% during the same period, even as concealed-carry permits exploded in popularity.)

The heart of the issue to me though is how clearly Gersh illustrates the liberal fear of the gun itself. He self-reports that so few of his readers have ever shot the gun, so he should take this responsibility of reporting fairly a little more seriously.

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 weaponry. Using an AR-15 made me irritable and jittery for hours afterwards. To me, it felt like a bazooka.

Gersh went to the range on the heels of the Orlando massacre to see if he could imagine bodies falling. Now that is frightening to me. When I go shooting, I visualize bullseyes on paper targets and think about whether my breathing is under control. But if his thoughts represent liberal thought generally then it is pretty clear that they think everyone who likes to shoot is also thinking about all the mayhem they can create, all the blood they can spill. No Gersh, responsible gun owners do not fantasize or dwell on cutting people in two with an automatic weapon (which hardly anyone in the general public even owns because it’s been against the law since the 1930s). Facts please! He tried to make an argument by analogy that doesn’t work at all because automatic weapons have been restricted for decades, but here is his babbling, also pretty worthy of credible consideration:

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?

He must not have gotten a lot of sleep last night, fretting about the negative responses to his scary experience (validate his feelings people!); that might explain the incoherence of that example.

So Gersh, if you truly want to have a substantive conversation about guns, first do your due diligence. Maybe get some lessons. Associate with people who have a healthy respect for and love of guns. Show our side that you’re not going to melt into a puddle of liberal tears at the sight of an inanimate object and then maybe we can talk.

Written by

11 Comments
  • mudbug says:

    I’m hurt. I replied to his idiot column and he didn’t mention it in his rebuttal!

  • Brian says:

    “Besides, if masculinity is defined by the power to commit violence on a wide scale…”
    I must have missed that talking point. Who defined masculinity that way? Way to set up and knock down those strawmen, Gersh.

  • Wfjag says:

    Being “a man” (or “a woman” for that matter) used to include the maturity and moral fortitude of facing facts and reporting the truth. His column was one lie after another, intended to cause fear among his ignorant readers and direct disdain towards people who own firearms. His defense now is that he can lie because that’s a feminine trait. What a POS “he” is.

  • GWB says:

    In my post yesterday, admittedly, I told him to shut his mouth – but it’s because his position was so misinformed, uneducated, and overdramatized that it could not be taken seriously.

    Yes. This is a perfectly acceptable reason to tell someone to shut their pie hole: what they’re saying is untrue. That is not a “shutting down of speech” but a shutting down of stupid. I’m all for that.

    a tool that should only be in the hands of our soldiers and cops

    You know what, I’m getting really sick of this idea that cops and soldiers are our betters. They’re no better than any other citizen. And (as I mentioned yesterday) on top of it all, cops are notoriously LOUSY shots. (The military does it, too, sometimes; I had to fight to get our Air Force unit that deployed with the Army enough ammo and range time to go beyond the semi-annual qualification. That was pre-9/11 though.)

    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.

    Be honest, Kuntzman, your goal was to ensure your readers were horrified of the weapon. And that sort of fear-mongering is exactly why we pointed out that you’re not a manly man – manly men don’t do that.

    I visualize bullseyes on paper targets and think about whether my breathing is under control

    Try taking a tactical training course, so you stop thinking of bullseyes. It really is important to be mentally prepared to shoot an actual human being when it comes time to defend yourself.

    (which hardly anyone in the general public even owns because it’s been against the law since the 1930s)

    Uh, no. It’s perfectly legal to own a fully automatic weapon. But, you have to obtain a license that you have to keep up (meaning, pay the heavy tax) annually. And, you have to find one for sale, since they were banned from importation and new manufacture in the mid-80s (yeah, Reagan signed that one :[ ). Except for, you know, cops and police…. *eyeroll*

    Associate with people who have a healthy respect for and love of guns.

    There are, admittedly, some gun bunnies who do not fit that description. Some folks are just intoxicated with the bang and the power and the whatever. Or are simply morons*. Of course, they’re countered by all the post-modern wusses who are scared of something simply because it can be used in a deadly fashion. And the overwhelming majority of gun owners aren’t like those nimrods** at all.

    (* I lived on Guam, where they had to regularly publish notices in the papers – before holidays and such – to please not shoot your firearm into the air to celebrate, since the bullet has to come down somewhere.
    ** Nimrod was actually a mighty mythological hunter, and as far as I can tell, it’s entirely due to Bugs Bunny’s ironic use of it in reference to Elmer Fudd that turned it into a synonym for “moron” and “idiot”. Modern language-making via Looney Toons.)

    • Jenny North says:

      You’re right – I should have been more precise: it’s illegal to own an automatic firearm without the tax stamp. But, I was more focused on combatting the continued misrepresentation of what an automatic is and the liberal implication that they’re everywhere.

      I also hate this “assault weapon” term, as if there’s some “non-assault weapon” that you can choose to buy instead. They are all firearms that can be used as weapons!! Personally I love this bit on buying a “protection gun” by MollyAnn Wymer:

      https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=mollyann%20wymer

      • GWB says:

        “Assault rifle” actually comes from an idea of building a battle rifle that is more appropriate for “assaults”. The idea was to combine the power of a machine gun (with its ability to suppress the enemy you’re assaulting), the power/accuracy of a rifle (for those medium range shots), and the short profile of the submachine gun (for working in tight spaces like trenches or buildings).

        Most combat rifles in WW1 and WW2 were long rifles, suited best for the sorts of warfare seen before WW1 (and yes, for a lot of the combat still required in both WWs). The small submachine guns were really handy for close quarters work – no barrel sticking way out in front of you as you turned that corner in the trench, no narrow hallways where you couldn’t actually level your rifle. But it *really* sucked for shooting that guy 100 feet away (unless you wanted to use a lot of ammo).

        The German “Sturmgewehr” was the first one, developed toward the end of WW2 (fielded in 1944). And, yes, you can blame Hitler for the name “assault rifle” – that’s what “Sturmgewehr” means (more literally “storm rifle” – as in “to storm an enemy position”). BTW, Kalashnikov stole the idea for the AK-47. He did NOT develop it on his own, Soviet propaganda notwithstanding.

        A modern “sporting rifle” does have many of the characteristics of an assault rifle – the shortish profile (aided by folding/collapsing stocks), the smaller rifle caliber, the higher capacity (compared to WW2 rifles with 5rd magazines) detachable magazines. Because those things are very handy for a lot of reasons other than assaulting the enemy with 30 of your closest friends.

        The real problem occurs because most people are simply SCARED of guns, and automatic guns are the scariest. So, they effectively ban full automatics. (Ironically, that restriction was supposed to hit handguns, too, but that was a bridge too far – the automatic restriction stayed in place, though.) Really, there shouldn’t be any restriction (except based on criminality, incompetence or stupidity) for weapons for the free American. [My biggest concern with automatics would be adequate training for the handler so they don’t adopt “spray and pray” as their aiming/firing technique.]

  • Ol Tanker says:

    It is incorrect to refer to this waste of oxygen as a “girl”. That is an insult to girls and women in general. It would be better to refer to it as a nebbish, (look it up, it applies). This nebbish deserves only pity and contempt. Pity that it remains alive and contempt for the parents that wasted effort to conceive and raise that waste of protoplasm.

  • Dana says:

    In my very-much-mocking article, I noted that both of my daughters are Army sharpshooters with the M-16 — my younger daughter requalified last month, and my older daughter is doing her Annual Training, and will probably requalify this week — and neither of them ever complained that the M-16 hurt their shoulders or their ears. Both of them have used the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, and they both think that it’s awesome.

    Mr Kuntzman shouldn’t be called a girl, because we’ve had thousands and thousands of women who have taken the challenge to serve our country, and have done so with honor and distinction. SGT Leigh Ann Hester was awarded the Silver Star for her actions, in combat, in Iraq. Some of our female soldiers have died in action, in Iraq and Afghanistan. We dishonor our brave women by suggesting that Mr Kuntzman is girly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram