arma virumque cano (et alia)
What happened at 1:00?
Care to explain to me what went on in this video that was irresponsible?
Weer'd, I don't care to explain anything to you.AztecRed, You're just playin' hard to get.
? ? ? ? ?
MikeB is right; also there are a number of safety violations while he is firing the weapon.That aside, we should remember the guy who put this video together felt a need to swaddle his revolver in red fabric which indicates his social life is about that of Mike W. Of course, one look at this dude probably told you that.--JadeGold
I think he's assuming that there was a person behind the camera, and that the muzzle came too close to covering said person.
Looks like a tripod shot myself, and I'm not sure if he actually muzzles the camera (does shift it with the cylinder blast a few times which is cool)stuff != people.I can understand Jade and Mike not getting that.
"MikeB is right; also there are a number of safety violations while he is firing the weapon."Kinda like Chicago has a population of 9 million.
Well, Jade's vast experience in gun handling says it is bad, it must be so. I mean he would never talk shit about something he knows nothing about or make stuff up.
All of the feigned confusion was pretty funny. Weer'd for example, at first didn't know what I meant, then later he presumes the camera was on a tripod. Either way the rule which says "never point the gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy" was violated. That's sloppy gun handling at best. If there was a cameraman, which seems quite possible to me, then it was a blatantly irresponsible act.Even when admitting it, Kurt says, "the muzzle came too close to covering said person." Don't forget, Kurt is the master at never admitting anything and never backing down. When confronted with video evidence, he downplays it by saying "came too close." At least none of you said the gun was unloaded.
"Either way the rule which says "never point the gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy" was violated."Do you have psychic powers, now? How do you know he's not willing to destroy his camera? Cameras get sacrificed all the time for good angles.He didn't do anything professional videographers haven't thousands of times over since the invention cheap cameras:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th_FpwgGc-EStop grasping for straws, mikeb.
Wow, Mike. You've gotten even more hostile these days. What's your blood pressure at?
I saw that. But I figured that the camera was on a tripod. And I assumed that this guy was wiling to shot the camera just for the sheer thrill of it.
Anonymous said, "Wow, Mike. You've gotten even more hostile these days."Does that mean we're acquainted?
Don't forget, Kurt is the master at never admitting anything and never backing down.What would you have me "admit," and down from what would you have me back?When confronted with video evidence, he downplays it by saying "came too close." The "video evidence" with which I was "confronted" was of a gun being pointed near a camera. Whether or not there was a person behind the camera, I have no idea, and I certainly have no idea of the exact positioning of the person who may or may not have been behind the camera, and thus have no idea if the gun came dangerously close to pointing at him.Besides--let's say, for the sake of argument, that this video did provide conclusive proof of unsafe gun handling--now what? Is it your contention that finding such evidence reveals some enormous, dirty secret about gun owners, that we've been hiding from the public all this time--that there are some irresponsible, careless ones out there? I don't think anyone denies that.So you let's say you found one of them--what does that have to do with the 79,999,999 other American gun owners?
You know what it says Kurt. It says that some percentage of them is exactly as irresponsible as the one we're talking about. It says that some percentage of the rest of them is as stubborn as you in refusing to admit when wrong. You're still saying "pointed near" instead of "pointed at." You're the king, man.
This is pretty weak, even by your standards.
MikeB: “You're still saying "pointed near" instead of "pointed at." You're the king, man.”But it is pointed at a camera, man. The picture is steady and at tripod height.
RuffRidr, You're right if by "pretty weak" you mean this is no big deal. I agree. But it is an honesty test. "Pointed near" is not the same as "pointed at." And insisting it was a tripod and not a person does not change what I said.
But it is an honesty test. "Pointed near" is not the same as "pointed at."And I suppose the implication here is that I flunked your cute little "honesty test." Alrighty, then--call me a liar, but the fact remains that I believe that even if he'd fired the gun at the time when the muzzle most closely approached being directly pointed at the camera, the bullet would have gone above it (or at least above the lens--I don't know how much higher the body of the camera extends above the lens.What you could do, though--as long as we're imagining a hypothetical cameraman to be menaced here, is to imagine that this hypothetical cameraman is Yao Ming, and thus tall enough to be endangered.Or better yet, since we're fabricating the cameraman out of whole cloth, imagine that he's a Conehead, and thus even with his eye aligned with the camera's eyepiece, the top of his head extends into the line of fire.
If you want a legitimate example of irresponsible shooting, watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U8dba9RMFI&feature=player_embedded