Is it just me or is there a small child laughing in the background?
I can understand a military gun safety expert doing such a demonstration on a closed live firing range but this is not something a private person should do or be able to do. And certainly not with children around.
Ftfy. Guns are tools, and the sport of shooting is interesting and challenging.
I pretty much agree with you otherwise.
middle school hunting safety class
This is one of those things that illustrates the differences between the US and UK. I’m sure the safety bit is a good idea, but the idea of deliberately mixing guns and kids seems odd.
The people who go on killing sprees typically practiced at gun ranges. In countries with more civilised gun laws that is often the only way to even get a license for a gun. So how can firing a gun at a gun range be generally considered a good thing?
Yep, tools designed for killing. No idea why anyone would keep such a thing around in a safe western society, except for eventually making a mess.
There is no lack of interesting and challenging things in this world, e.g. shooting a bow is arguably more challenging, but it doesn’t give people an excuse to handle and fire guns. Especially people leaning to the conservative side are prone to that, so as a society we have to consider whether this is a culture we want to foster. I see is little benefit for society in that sport, but a substantial risk.
Two points here:
Exactly. Hunting safety courses are something to be taken when you get a hunting license. Not something everyone should do. Because that just means everyone just gets to hunt with only a middle school course’s worth of training.
And that’s just a horrible idea, not only in terms of gun safety but also in terms of correct technique reducing the suffering of the quarry as much as possible and in terms of understanding the ecology of the ecosystem you are interfering with so it gets strengthened rather than weakened by hunting. Both of these points are main concerns of mandatory hunting training where I’m from AFAIK.
The number of rounds per second isn’t the issue. The issue is that the weapon in the video is firing in full-auto mode. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle, and thus the weapon in the video is a CAR-15 variant of some sort, and not an AR-15.
The story checks out. The woman in question was named Nancy McEwen, who was found killed in 1967. I found this on the Wikipedia page for NYPD chief detective Albert Seedman, who investigated the case and found the shooter.
In mid-1967, Seedman, then chief detective for southern Brooklyn, made his reputation as an investigator who could solve baffling cases. While driving on the Belt Parkway one summer morning near Plum Beach, a young woman named Nancy McEwen suddenly drifted off the road onto the median strip. A police lieutenant in the car behind her pulled over to see what the problem was. He found her moaning, with her head slumped forward, and called for an ambulance. She died a short time later at Coney Island Hospital, where doctors found a small hole on the side of her head that turned out to have been caused by a bullet.
Since only one window in McEwen’s car was open, and none of them had been shattered, Seedman believed the shot had to have been fired from Sheepshead Bay or the nearby area, and that due to the distance and the car’s speed, it was probably not intentional. He ordered detectives and uniformed officers to search the dunes and marshes for a possible shell casing. After 2,400 people were interviewed and several other leads came to nothing, he pointed at a spot on the map and told his detectives to look for people who owned boats. That led to the shooter—a local gas station owner who had been on his boat that morning taking target practice at a floating beer can. One of his bullets had ricocheted off the water’s surface and killed McEwen. A grand jury ruled it an accident, and no homicide charges were brought, although the shooter was fined $100 for violating firearms laws with the rifle.
Watch how the rifle moves. Also note no cranking motion. No crank trigger, or bump stock. It’s a CAR-15 variant of some sort.
Also, not sure how you guys are judging the ROF and it’s supposed increase. Can’t judge by the frequency of the tracers as they could have been inconsistently loaded/spaced in the magazines.
“ in middle school hunting safety class.”
That can’t be a real thing. Then again- I grew up in NY.
given that there are literal fascist paramilitary organizations coming out of the woodwork right now, i’d say it’s a pretty good idea to own a gun and know how to shoot it.
not sure where you live, but where i am, white supremacists killed over 300 people in the last decade, and the people tasked with protecting the members of our western society killed over a thousand this year so far.
Technical question:
I assume the things are bouncing off the water due to the low angle of incidence. At what angle would they reliably go into the water and cause no issues above water?
(Asking for an action movie director. Well, for all of them really. 
)
For me, I was going off memory of the rate of fire of an M-16 as cited in the technical manual. It’s actually 700-950 rpm so my memory was a little rusty.
Well Boy Scouts have a hunting elective towards a Ranger Award. Are there still Boy Scout troops?
Not for me.
Do Girl Scouts shoot guns at campouts sometimes? I know there’s still Girl Scouts.
Exactly 90 degrees. On glass-still waters.
Ain’t no problem with guns that can’t be solved with more guns, right?
In the EU, we have a roughly similar number of racist murders, but of course a lot less police brutality, one important reason for that is because we don’t have so many guns.
Also I must have missed the memo that explains how guns can cure people from being racist assholes. These guys already lost a civil war and it obviously did not change anyone’s mind.
And how would a gun help against your own police being seriously fucked up? What good is it to actually provide them with a pretext for shooting you?
I don’t subscribe to the idea that it’s fine to first introduce animals to a new habitat, and then simply shoot them just because they prove to be a nuisance. Especially when the result - as you explain - is not entirely convincing.
So while I acknowledge that some hunting may be helpful for actually preserving nature, I think often there are other, less invasive ways to deal with these things. But then, I also don’t think we own this planet, and I understand that many others do.
If you asked them, I guess that the goat, deer or pig in question would find that this is not a very compelling argument for shooting them.
