I read an article by Gersh Kuntzman of the New York Daily Herald in which he relates a story of how he fired an AR-15 and found it to be menacing, horrifying and very, very loud. Mr. Kuntzman claims that his shoulder was bruised, he was disoriented by the brass flying by his face and that he was left with a sense of PTSD after the experience. He was in a gun store that was run by a former police officer from Europe. After reading this article, I laughed out loud. Not to disparage Mr. Kuntzman, but because I found his article to be a bit less than believable. Lets take these points one at a time.
First of all the shoulder bruise. If the former police officer just handed Mr. Kuntzman the rifle and left him to his own devices I still doubt that a bruised shoulder would be the result. Even if the rifle was held six inches from the pocket of the shoulder, fired and allowed to bounce back at Mr. Kuntzman, I doubt any real injury would have resulted. The former police officer should have given Mr. Kuntzman detailed instruction on how to hold, load, aim, fire and unload the weapon and should have done all this with an unloaded weapon before allowing any live fire. When I fire my weapon, I place my nose right up to the rear of the charging handle (that's the thing that puts a round in the chamber) and pull the trigger. No damage to my nose. There is a large spring in the receiver extension tube, or stock if you prefer, that not only pushes the bolt carrier group back into the upper receiver, it helps to manage recoil. Mr. Kuntzman got bad instruction if he was injured.
Next lets talk about the flying brass. The ejection port (that's where the expended casing come out of the upper receiver) is on the right side of the weapon. Even firing this gun as a left handed shooter, which I am, the brass never gets in the way or even gets close to my face. When I first was introduced to this weapon system in 1983 (when I attended US Army Basic Training) the expended brass did hit me in the face. Nowadays there is a triangular piece of metal just behind the ejection port that deflects the expanded brass to the right and out of my face. So even if Mr. Kuntzman is left handed and shoots that way, the brass shouldn't even be noticed. Mr. Kuntzman also states that he has fired handguns in the past. Why was not the brass ejected from these guns effecting him. Was he only firing a .22 caliber revolver? That's about the only gun that doesn't have any significant recoil, but also since it is a revolver, the brass is kept in the cylinder.
Now lets to the PTSD. In all fairness there was a comment at the end of the article by Mr. Kuntzman apologizing for using this term. Some folks were offended. I wasn't. I was in the military and have been a police officer for more than 20 years to this point. Myself and everyone I have ever served with have been in situations where we wondered about the outcome. I have been scared to death. I been involved in altercations with suspects that have ended in one or more of us going to the hospital and one time, the medical examiners office. I've buried some of my friends. When I get a call of a man with a knife, the hair still stands up on the back of my neck. That sir, is a form of PTSD. Mr. Kuntzman used this term on purpose. It was for a political end, as was his entire article. I doubt Mr. Kuntzman has ventured far from the halls of academia, or his typewriter or computer and put on a uniform and served his country or community. Like I said, I wasn't offended. This just showed what type of person you are - deplorable. If loud noises upset you, how come the last time you claim to have fired a gun you didn't seem to be effected?
Guns are loud. In an indoor range, louder. If you were wearing proper hearing protection, it shouldn't have been a big deal. But I'll give you that it's loud.
So Mr. Kuntzman, your article was nothing more than one written by a left wing political hack working for the local version of Pravda. You were given your marching orders by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest and put your own spin on things.
If you chose not to own a gun or be around them, that's your choice and I will respect it. But be grateful there are folks like me that are willing to stand up the evil in this world that you pretend doesn't exist. It is men like me that have guaranteed a free press in this country.
First of all the shoulder bruise. If the former police officer just handed Mr. Kuntzman the rifle and left him to his own devices I still doubt that a bruised shoulder would be the result. Even if the rifle was held six inches from the pocket of the shoulder, fired and allowed to bounce back at Mr. Kuntzman, I doubt any real injury would have resulted. The former police officer should have given Mr. Kuntzman detailed instruction on how to hold, load, aim, fire and unload the weapon and should have done all this with an unloaded weapon before allowing any live fire. When I fire my weapon, I place my nose right up to the rear of the charging handle (that's the thing that puts a round in the chamber) and pull the trigger. No damage to my nose. There is a large spring in the receiver extension tube, or stock if you prefer, that not only pushes the bolt carrier group back into the upper receiver, it helps to manage recoil. Mr. Kuntzman got bad instruction if he was injured.
Next lets talk about the flying brass. The ejection port (that's where the expended casing come out of the upper receiver) is on the right side of the weapon. Even firing this gun as a left handed shooter, which I am, the brass never gets in the way or even gets close to my face. When I first was introduced to this weapon system in 1983 (when I attended US Army Basic Training) the expended brass did hit me in the face. Nowadays there is a triangular piece of metal just behind the ejection port that deflects the expanded brass to the right and out of my face. So even if Mr. Kuntzman is left handed and shoots that way, the brass shouldn't even be noticed. Mr. Kuntzman also states that he has fired handguns in the past. Why was not the brass ejected from these guns effecting him. Was he only firing a .22 caliber revolver? That's about the only gun that doesn't have any significant recoil, but also since it is a revolver, the brass is kept in the cylinder.
Now lets to the PTSD. In all fairness there was a comment at the end of the article by Mr. Kuntzman apologizing for using this term. Some folks were offended. I wasn't. I was in the military and have been a police officer for more than 20 years to this point. Myself and everyone I have ever served with have been in situations where we wondered about the outcome. I have been scared to death. I been involved in altercations with suspects that have ended in one or more of us going to the hospital and one time, the medical examiners office. I've buried some of my friends. When I get a call of a man with a knife, the hair still stands up on the back of my neck. That sir, is a form of PTSD. Mr. Kuntzman used this term on purpose. It was for a political end, as was his entire article. I doubt Mr. Kuntzman has ventured far from the halls of academia, or his typewriter or computer and put on a uniform and served his country or community. Like I said, I wasn't offended. This just showed what type of person you are - deplorable. If loud noises upset you, how come the last time you claim to have fired a gun you didn't seem to be effected?
Guns are loud. In an indoor range, louder. If you were wearing proper hearing protection, it shouldn't have been a big deal. But I'll give you that it's loud.
So Mr. Kuntzman, your article was nothing more than one written by a left wing political hack working for the local version of Pravda. You were given your marching orders by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest and put your own spin on things.
If you chose not to own a gun or be around them, that's your choice and I will respect it. But be grateful there are folks like me that are willing to stand up the evil in this world that you pretend doesn't exist. It is men like me that have guaranteed a free press in this country.
