I'm sure many of my readers saw this hysterically over-the-top, wildly exaggerated and factually 'challenged' report in the New York Daily News. (That newspaper is, of course, notorious for its liberal perspective, anti-gun stance and sheer gullibility when it comes to facts.)
Among the article's claims was this one.
Frank Stelmach of Double Tap Shooting Range and Gun Shop invited me, videographer Michael Sheridan and reporter Adam Shrier to come down. Stelmach is not like many gun lovers. He admires his weaponry, yes, and has difficulty explaining why law-abiding citizens need a gun that can empty a 40-round clip in less than five seconds. But he also hates the idea that “bad people” get a hold of a gun like this and use it to kill without difficulty.
“There should be expanded background checks — extending into your family, friends and associates,” he said. “And there should be a mental health screening. In Europe, if you want to buy a gun, you have to see a doctor (for a psychiatric examination) to see if something’s not right.”
Stelmach, who opened his shop six years ago after a career in law enforcement in Europe, even calls for government officials to take away guns from some owners — something very few gun advocates support.
He also said he never sells a gun to someone who “looks a little bit funny,” and he claimed he had prevented many guns from getting into the wrong hands because the would-be purchaser “asked stupid questions” like, “What happens to me if the gun is stolen?”
There's more at the link (although why anyone would want to read such drivel, I don't know).
Unfortunately for the newspaper's and the journalist's credibility, it seems the report was far from correct. The gun shop responded on Facebook:
Yesterday the man in this video from the NY Daily News called and asked if he could come and interview us about the basic principles of how an AR-15 works. We acknowledged his offer so that we could prove that an AR-15 is indeed a great and safe weapon as stated in the video. After the video was filmed there was another Q&A type conversation on how things work in other countries, what are some of the things others believe would be a step into the right direction of gun control. To our knowledge we did not know that Mr. Kuntzman would completely turn things around and make our establishment look like one of anti-gun advocates.
We have received dozens of phone from all over the country in regards to the article. Many of these callers expressed disgust with the article and told us to stay away from the media. I can assure everyone that we do not support mental health screenings like they do in Europe and we don't think that government officials should take away guns from people as it was portrayed in the article. Currently we are doing everything we can to take this article down because after reading it we are just as disgusted about it as all of you are. Our team here at Double Tap would like to sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding and report that we are doing everything in our power to get this article removed.
I implore all of our supporters to share our apology with everyone in order to help defend ourselves from the media who is doing anything in their power to blemish the face of all gun owners and attempting to add more rule to the fire of the attempt of the liberal gun-grabbing agenda.To those that are writing negative reviews about us, please understand we had no intentions of having this article cause such an issue, nor intentions of us looking like anti gun advocates but, to educate which in turn did the complete opposite due to Mr. Kuntzman. If anyone has anymore questions or concerns please feel free to come in or call us we will gladly discuss this issue with you.
And for the record, if you get a bruised shoulder or PTSD from shooting an AR-15 you may be a Katie Couric, liberal with ought testicular fortitude.
So much for journalistic integrity . . . although nowadays that very concept appears to be an old-fashioned anachronism, more's the pity.
Peter
17 comments:
There hasn't been any integrity in journalism for many, many years.
Indeed, as far as I am concerned, "journalists" in general are some of the worst enemies of our civilization.
That "journalist" was asking for "factual corrections" to what he wrote just yesterday on Twitter. Rather condescending about it, too.
Sigh... No wonder the dead tree media are dying...
He's posted a follow-up.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gun-lovers-opinion-assault-rifles-article-1.2674555
Rather than address his errors, he's posting the messages from people who are disparaging his initial article, and him personally.
"I said bad things about their toys. Now they're attacking my feelz! Mommy!"
Journalism is no longer about truth it is about narrative, which is just a PC way of saying it is about creating a story to support the writer's already formed conclusion. Forgotten by these journalists is any duty to preserve or present truth.
Not that it makes a damn bit of difference to the anti gun media types, but the long gun used in the Pulse shooting was a Sig Mcx not an AR15. Of course it was black, with a pistol grip and adjustable stock, and could take standard capacity magazines so by definition it was an AR15 machine gun capable according to one congress liar of shooting 700 rounds a minute.
This is hardly a new development; I recall (dimly) a case, back in the early 90s, of a newspaper columnist telling an almost entirely fabricated tale of going shooting with some local enthusiasts, who (in the published account) were wildly irresponsible. Apparently the editors had ordered him to replace his original truthful account (perfectly safe trip to a well-run club range) with one that made the gun nuts look bad.
Also: if that "reporter" thinks shooting an AR-15 is terrifying, maybe he should try a Brown Bess.
Journalistic integrity is an oxymoron.
Rule number ONE for talking to the media) Use the same rule you use for talking to Law Enforcement...DON'T.
As some people posted in the comments when Terminal Lance pointed at this "news" report with a sigh, if that's the experience he had with an AR-15 then he should probably try firing something much more sedate like a .50... I certainly didn't have any such problems when I fired one.
Also can anyone clarify what sort of rifle he would've had to get hold of to have a full auto fire selector?
I would like to propose a new rule.
Nobody talks to the press unless you have YOUR OWN camera rolling.
Some take longer than others to learn to not talk to the press, I guess. This is just a rather clumsy and blatant example of why.
At this point, any gun store owner who agrees to do such an interview can be presumptively assumed to be either too stupid to continue to be supported, and should go out of business, or on the other side, there's no reason for us to automatically believe the shop owner's claims after the backlash.
Either way, they are our enemy and should be treated as such.
Here's a great rebuttal to a recent call for repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
http://www.theburningplatform.com/2016/06/16/oh-look-the-actual-debate/
Grog: we've been making great rebuttals and such for decades, for all my life in fact. They don't matter, our enemies are not debating in good faith, they're not debating at all. At this point, the only direct rebuttal worth making is "F**k off" and the like.
Of course, if you're playing to an audience to the side who might be influenced, you might want to say more. But to the convinced gun grabbers? I've changed the mind of exactly one of them, it's simply not worth the effort.
Mr. Kuntzman
Kunt Man, huh.
Not too mention (((Kuntzman)))
I'm thinking a SMLE MkIII and a tough Cockney DI...
or R. Lee and a M-14
Post a Comment