[merk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puu9EOrqjso

I gave them a little piece of my mind with a comment. I had to cut out a lot of what I said due to the character limit.

[swingset]

The only downside to this Darwin-in-action clip is that there's guns involved (bad for our cause). Otherwise, it's just more of the tragically stupid failing to pay heed to common sense. Youtube is pretty much a clinic on things not to do, and never to film yourself doing.

[El Tejon]

Holy cow. We could go on all day at that nightmare!:uhoh: :what:

Who taought these guys to shoot, if anyone bothered to at all?:banghead:

[veloce851]

Besides the lack of eye protection.. and possibly ear plugs (can't really tell from the vid)
What exactly is wrong with the picture?

If you are implying that 3 teens having a good time firing off rounds for no appherent reason. Is somehow a bad thing for the RKBA, I just don't see it.

Anti's will interpret a professional IDPA competition as just as frivolous.

I don't know of very many country boys that when given the chance didn't do just that.
No they aren't acting like a range officer is standing over the shoulder complaining about rapid fire.

But I didn't see anyone sweep anyone else.
And the video doesn't show what they are shooting at so who knows if they were following all the rules.

[Justin]

Ah, nothing quite like teh internets for being able to display your lack of proper education to so many millions of people so quickly.

Quite frankly, stuff like this is why, if we're going to have public school systems, gun safety and basic marksmanship should be as much of a requirement as driver's ed.

[Spot77]

Quite frankly, stuff like this is why, if we're going to have public school systems, gun safety and basic marksmanship should be as much of a requirement as driver's ed.



Heck, here in Maryland, driver's ed isn't even a part of a high school kid's education.

At least not in my county.

[joab]

I agree with veloce
Other than the eyes and ears
They kept their guns down range even when clearing jams, at the end that one boy did turn towards the others but the gun was up and it appeared that he had cleared the gun.
With the zooms on cameras these days the cameraman could have been well out of harms way.

I just can't figure out why they had to drop their guns every time they chambered a round

[ajax]

I have to agree with joab and veloce on this one. How about you guys who think somthing is being done wrong give some examples. Put up or quit being the gun snobs you sound like.

[Dr. Dickie]

I agree.
If there was a camera person, then yeah not good.
But if the camera was simply on a stand ( I do not have sound), then they do not know how to work a rifle bolt without taking the stock from their shoulder, but other than that...

[Justin]

The camera is obviously handheld. A tripod would be much steadier. Also, at one point, you can hear the camera operator speaking.

Standing downrange from a bunch of obviously inexperienced shooters is horrendously stupid.

[ajax]

As one poster pointed out optical zoom is a fantastic thing. None of us can be sure where the camera man was actually positioned.

[Justin]

A zoomed image from a hand-held camera would appear to have a massive amount of shake.

[ajax]

Not if you have a steady hand.

[Justin]

Having worked in both live television and high-end video production, I can state quite authoritatively that even if you have the steady hand of a heart surgeon, once you start zooming in it's going to look like you're in the midst of an epileptic fit.

Were it that easy to hold a camera still, I can guarantee you that television stations and production houses wouldn't spend significant amounts of money on tripods.

Also, the fact that the camera operator is talking to the shooters is probably a good indication that he is standing within speaking distance.

[ajax]

Well I can speak to someone without yelling from a fair distance and at 16x optical zoom on my camcorder i can lean against objects just like when Im hunting and steady my self considerable. By the way I just did that with my camcorder to prove my point before I made this statement.

[Macpherson]

So I'm guessing everyone here wears their seat belt, drives exactly the speed limit, looks both ways before crossing and comes to a complete stop at the sign? :rolleyes:

Beyond the cameraman appearing to stand downrange of the shooters, I didn't see anything "disgusting" to speak of. Depending on the camera it's very difficult to tell where the cameraman is actually located; a lot of new cameras have image stabilizers so he could have been much farther away than it looks.

[veloce851]

Not if you have a steady hand.
I'm with Justin on this one, it would take an amazingly steady hand.

However I have often used a tripod but kept my hand on the camer to pan back and forth.. and that would cause movement that would appear as if it was held by my hand only.

The angle is a bit wierd so I'm still not convinced that he was directly in the line of fire. Probably not in the safest position, but not neccessarly in the direct line of fire.

I'll agree they are not poster children for 100% pure and proper firearm handling.

However I dont' have any problem with some kids having a good time enjoying firearms.
We were all that age and missused our cars in a number of ways that would be considered just as dangerous to bystanders.
(I can recall a wicked series of donuts I performed in my '69 Mustang fastback on the grass at a park when I was 16 that most likely put a hand full of my friends in danger.)

Don't get me wrong I'm not completely condoning the obvious lack of specific training.
But I have a hard time coming down on youth displaying that firearms can be fun and enjoyable.

[merk]

Heck, here in Maryland, driver's ed isn't even a part of a high school kid's education.

Dont have it here either.


If you are implying that 3 teens having a good time firing off rounds for no appherent reason. Is somehow a bad thing for the RKBA, I just don't see it.

Never ever said that. Being a teenager myself(19), I enjoy my rapid fire just as much as the next person.

I have to agree with joab and veloce on this one. How about you guys who think somthing is being done wrong give some examples. Put up or quit being the gun snobs you sound like.

I see too much evidence that the person filming the shooting is just off to the left and forward of the shooters. If you dont see that, then thats perfectly fine. There is nothing "gun snobbish" about being concerned with what appears(and I believe to be) an incredibly reckless camera job. The ear pro(im not going to nag eye protection, because I dont wear it when im at the range) is really nothing worth nagging about so much. If they want to go deaf by the time theyre 30 thats perfectly fine with me.

However I dont' have any problem with some kids having a good time enjoying firearms.

Which was never the issue.

So I'm guessing everyone here wears their seat belt, drives exactly the speed limit, looks both ways before crossing and comes to a complete stop at the sign?

And what if I do?

[joab]

I'm goingto have to bow to Justin's camera expertice here but I still don't think that this risies to the level of "disgusting"

[Justin]

The angle is a bit wierd so I'm still not convinced that he was directly in the line of fire.

No, he isn't directly in the line of fire. He is obviously off to one side, but still down range. However, the combination of obviously inexperienced shooters, and a person who is standing past the line of fire is probably the kind of thing that just gets Old Man Murphy all sorts of excited.

[merk]

Ill admit to over zealous use of adjectives :) .

[ripcurlksm]

:rolleyes:

[El Tejon]

1. No eyes;
2. No ears;
3. Young men have not been shown how to manipulate their weapons, they are dropping the weapons off their shoulders and manipulating the weapons at their waistline to a man;
4. Unsteady weapon handling;
5. Improper weapon handling;
6. Cameraman is in front of the firing line while this is being done.

All of that spells receipe for disaster, at least to me.:scrutiny:

[ajax]

1 At least one guy has eye protection on. 2 You sound like a old nagging wife El Tejon. You cant say for sure about ear protection unless your able to enhance video. 3 Who cares if the rifle comes off shoulder. Just more nit picking. 4 This is the same as 3. just more nit picking. 5 More nit picking. 6 This is possible but no one was their to see exactly where the guy was so.

[cloudcroft]

I don't see how it warrants the descriptor "disgusting" either.

-- John D.

[BergaminoCAV]

thats askin for a fatal mistake to happen

[230RN]

Flame Away:

The only problem I saw was they weren't using their slings. I always use the hasty sling arrangment.

I mildly object to publishing the video; it seemed pointless.

My kids and I have doing doing stuff like this for decades. You who've done any firing in the wide open spaces know what I mean.

We used to keep a can bouncing around until it was so shredded that successive bullets would pass through it.

The camera? I did not see a line on the ground establishing a firing line, and it looked OK to me. I'd probably use the longer lens setting, but it didn't look particulary dangerous to me.

I sometimes wonder if the increasing loss of open spaces to fire "for fun" hasn't hogtied some people mentally into thinking that formal range discipline was somehow graved in stone for all situations.

I once wrote a letter to the paper (it was during one of those "gun flaps") to the effect that my sons and I went up into the mountains and shot up over 2000 rounds of ammunition. I then stated that we picked up our trash and spent cases and that nobody was hurt. I then asked the pointed question: "So where are the headlines?"

[DF357]

Notice the time delay from firing to hearing the bang? The camera was a long way away.

['Card]

Notice the time delay from firing to hearing the bang? The camera was a long way away.
No, it's just that the audio and the video get out of synch towards the end of the clip. You can tell because the first shot is almost perfectly in synch, but the longer the video plays the more delay you hear. That's a pretty common problem with homemade digital video.

As far as the stupidity of it...
*shrug*
Probably not the brightest or safest thing I've ever seen, but it wouldn't even make my Top 100 list of "Stupid Crap I Did When I Was A Teenager".

[arthurcw]

Beyond the cameraman appearing to stand downrange of the shooters, I didn't see anything "disgusting" to speak of

Other than the gaping wound in your husband’s skull, I think that went ok Mrs. Lincoln.

If I saw a video of my teens (don’t have any) doing this, they would lose their guns until they’d passed some basic safety classes. Then They MIGHT get a .22 LR single shot back to practice with in my presence only. But only after the hole I chewed in their butts was healed up… and that would take a LOOOOOONG time.

If this video would have been shot from behind the firing line, then I would still put them in hack for not wearing protection and p*ss poor weapon handling. “Come on! What if that would have been an attack of Zombie Martian Dingoes? You’d have been over run! Get the Snap caps and DRILL!!!”

Someone made a comment about how they had done worse as a teen. So did I. That doesn’t mean I want my Kid to enjoy the pleasures of Hindsight Shivers.

I’m all for having fun while shooting. No real reason to go if you don’t. But they could have laughed their collective tails off and still not put the cameraman in danger.

Also, *dawning flame suit* I don’t really think it matters if the Camera was “far away”. It doesn’t look like they were shooting .25’s out of a tip up 2” barrel. Those were long guns. Pealing off a bad shot because of crappy gun handling 30 degrees off the center line is still gonna send that bullet flying 30 degrees off the center line. How much safer are you 100 ft back with a full snort long gun round?

I know… I’m just no fun. I’m the worse Dad ever. NOW GO TO YOUR ROOM!

[Werewolf]

Were it that easy to hold a camera still, I can guarantee you that television stations and production houses wouldn't spend significant amounts of money on tripods.
Ever heard of a Steady-Cam. A camera operator can literally be running with the camera and there will be no vibration.

Right after I got out of the Navy in '85 my first job was at TV 25 in OKC. I worked regularly with the camera guys on remote shoots making commercials. A steady cam was parse and parcel of the daily equipment the operators used. Steady-cam is a man portable mount that uses springs, counterbalances and only an engineer knows what else to keep a camera steady and vibration free regardless of the motion of the operator. They work and work darn well and the technology has been around since at least '85.

That said I don't believe the operator of the camera in the video had one but neither was he in a terribly unsafe position being what appears to be just a few feet in front of the firing line and well to the side.

I wouldn't stand there but then some people's lives are worth less than others and people decide every day what their life is worth by their actions.

[Bigreno]

Here's a video for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZE9hV-czGA

How's that for fantastic Jack-ass-ery. :banghead:

[Justin]

Last time I priced them, which was quite awhile ago, Steadicam setups were horrendously expensive.

[ripcurlksm]

This thread is getting retarded. :barf:

[joab]

How's that for fantastic Jack-ass-eryYeah but how can you top hot brass down a wife beater

[joab]

Other than the gaping wound in your husband’s skull, I think that went ok Mrs. Lincoln. That's a ridiculous comparison. Booth followed all four rules

Just so you know that's a :D

[10-Ring]

:rolleyes: Stupid is as stupid does :rolleyes: Hopefully, natural selection works on these guys! :scrutiny:

[Johnny Guest]

Anyway, this one's pretty well worn out.

Closed.

Johnny