Your video, Officer talks to kids about flashing realistic BB gun, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Good points.

I'm not a gun nutadvocate, but I have friends who are. I have shot a fairly wide range of guns with them, including an AR-15. For myself, I only ever owned BB guns and a .22 pellet air rifle, for target shooting and varmint control on my family farm. I did go pheasant hunting with borrowed 20 and 12 gauge shotguns a couple times.

My friend that owns the AR-15 is a responsible gun owner. Do I think he needs it? Hell no. But he likes it. Do I need a PC with an i7 processor and nVidia 1060 GPU? Hell no. But I like it.

So I guess it becomes a question of to what extent the things that we like can be used for negative purposes. My nVidia 1060 is unlikely to be used to facilitate a crime (unless games or bitcoin mining get criminalized). However, even though AR-15s might be one of the primary firearms of choice for murderous wackos, the percentage of people that own AR-15's who are murderous wackos is also extremely low.

If banning AR-15s would significantly reduce the rate of mass shootings and/or the average number of deaths per incident, it could be well worth doing even though it would annoy many responsible owners like my friend. ...But, I just don't think that would be the case. Not by itself.

I think we're at a point where we NEED to do something. If the something that we decide to do is to ban AR-15s, well, so be it I guess. But I don't think we'd be pleased with the long-term results of that. It'd be cutting the flower off of the top of the weed. We need to dig deeper, and I think that registration and licensing are sane ways to attempt to do that.

Seemed everything but the "pointed it at two children" part could be honest mistake, but he never pointed it at anyone in the video.
I must assume they couldn't prove Ritchie knew it was a bb gun, hence no charges.

10m with a rifle seems too easy. Even with a crappy air rifle (BB gun, really, so not even actually rifled and probably much lower velocity), I can put every shot in a one inch circle from that far away. They are shooting pretty small targets though, and you can make a competition out of mm differences so I guess it works.

I've never watched the shooting part of the olympics, but pistols seems cooler.

I wonder if there are groups who do this sort of thing around me. I like shooting, but since I live in the city, I don't really want to own a real gun. An airgun might be an interesting alternative.

Good, so we can agree on the one possible reason for him not being shot could have been racial bias (scrawny white kid). Cool.




As for the rest:

"
- the Civil War wasn't about Slavery..
"

Propaganda is real. Believing everything you're told by a government authority who has the power to control information, and who has a vested interest in drumming up nationalism, is naive. Particularly when that authority's actions so often throughout the history of events in question have not matched their words.

I would only ask you this :
How many of your neighbors today (of any race) do you think would willingly die _for you_, a stranger to them, for _any_ reason?
How many white people do you think would have died _for you_ back then? (I use "for you" because you earlier indicated that you are black, so the question is meant to be answered not rhetorically, but actually from your perspective)
Does it make sense that the civil war was out of the goodness of white people's hearts, or does it make more sense that white people had a score to settle with one another?
Do you really think that primary schools are telling the absolute unbiased truth about the civil war (particularly given that the north got to dictate the curriculum after victory)?

My point here has nothing to do with any opinions of black people. It is squarely to do with distrust of government as an institution combined with government's history of white washing is own actions after the fact. Don't conflate the two.




"
- that white people are treated just as poorly as black people (sometimes)..

[...]

Like I said before. Fuck off with that..
"Well, cops are mean to ME TOO!!" bullshit.
"

Why would I not assert that [*some*] white individuals are [at times] treated just as poorly [or poorer] as [*some*] black [individuals]? (to be stated precisely).

Your command that I not mention harms done to whites makes it sound like you don't think those harms are worth mentioning. Maybe because you think they are not real or meaningful?

There are plenty of police brutality videos on this site depicting injury and murder of white people at the hands of police.

Do dead white people get to come back to life, because they aren't black, and so their gun shot wounds obviously aren't as bad?

Or those that went to jail for 'assaulting a police officer' after a cop beat the crap out of them, do they get to rewind their lives and get their squandered time [and reputation/job] back, because they aren't black?

Like I said, I agree that black people get fucked with more than white people - but I don't deny the suffering of anyone, and I certainly wouldn't go as far as to assume that 'it's all about me'.

In essence, being targeted more often, is not the same as being the only target.

The general problem I see with LE (that affects everyone), is the government's (police are the executive branch) lack of obedience to the 14th amendment, giving themselves privilege to harm the state (in a republic, citizens are the state) whenever their agents personally whim so.

That's a separate issue from LE officers more often using their privilege on blacks than on whites - which as I stated, is also real issue in and of itself.

Fixing this disregard for the 14th amendment would encompass everyone, so 'we're all in it together' in this regard.





"
- that the ONLY DIFFERENCE between cops arresting a MASS fucking MURDERER WITHOUT INCIDENCE..

And murdering 12 year old Tamir Rice for wielding a BB-GUN!

Is that Rice pointed a "realistic-looking" gun at cops.
"

I never even mentioned anything about this.

Was that the difference? Was it actually that Rice pointed a real looking fake gun at a cop, while this recent white kid didn't?
(I don't actually know)

If that really is the difference, then I guess I can see why the one pointing a gun at the cop would get shot by a cop.
...
Although, I suspect that the black kid never pointed a gun at anyone, and the cop lied about it, and the cop just shot the kid 'just in case' (because that's what cops do when they feel even remotely in danger, because they're trained to be paranoid and afraid of everything, and to place their own safety first and foremost). And I suspect that cops would have liked to do the same in this recent case, but their departments are probably afraid of drawing more negative attention to the police.
But, that's just my suspicion. I wasn't there.




In this recent case, what was the connection between the white kid and the church he attacked? Was it random, or did he pick it for a reason? (actually asking, not some veiled statement)

-scheherazade

Exactly! Cops (or anyone really) see a scrawny white kid and think..

"He probably isn't dangerous"

Cops see an unarmed black teen and they immediately see them as a threat or a criminal.



Stop! Asserting that:

- the Civil War wasn't about Slavery..

- that white people are treated just as poorly as black people (sometimes)..

- that the ONLY DIFFERENCE between cops arresting a MASS fucking MURDERER WITHOUT INCIDENCE..

And murdering 12 year old Tamir Rice for wielding a BB-GUN!

Is that Rice pointed a "realistic-looking" gun at cops.


It's belittling, demeaning, insulting, disingenuous, and delusional to suggest that People of Color are treated by the same standards.

THIS is what White-Privilege provides you with.
A "get out of instantly being gunned-down" card..


So it's INFURIATING to have some cockfaced asshole like You or Lantern or Bobknight tell me..

that anything other than ingrained INSTITUTIONAL RACISM is responsible for the way People of Color are brutalized, jailed & murdered regularly, causally and on a daily basis.


Like I said before. Fuck off with that..
"Well, cops are mean to ME TOO!!" bullshit.

Stop diminishing the fundamental mistreatment of non-whites in America.

It's disgusting. It's sickening.
And it's perpetuated by willfully ignorant rhetoric like yours.

Your video, A Boy, a Mouse, and a BB Gun, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 37 Badge!

First off, the treadmill is healthy for the dog, and burns off energy, making the easier to control let alone giving him "something to do". Some people just don't have the time to exercise their dog for the hour or so every day like every dog NEEDS to, no matter what the breed. You have 7 acres of squirrels? Good for you! There's a lot of people who live in condos and apartments where taking the dog for a walk is more dangerous to this dog AND handler than this pit probably is to anyone else.

Your statistics aren't complete...

There are more "vicious" attacks on people by Shepherds worldwide then there are actual pitbull dogs. THAT'S a statistic too.

Dogs can be looked at like guns.

Chihuahua = Ether gas BB gun
Jack Russell = .22 target pistol
Shepherd = .308 bolt action hunting rifle
Pitbull - AK47

If the gun is taken care of, and used properly, it won't suddenly take off and kill a seeing eye dog any more than a properly cared for pitbull.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'japan, mech, Suidobashi Heavy Industry, hi powered bb gun, mobility' to 'japan, mech, Suidobashi Heavy Industry, hi powered bb gun, mobility, kuratas' - edited by lucky760

>> ^Ryjkyj:

Great stuff, but why does it have to be called: "TEMPUS II: THE FOURTH DIMENSION!" As if some dick with a slo mo camera is doing something besides shooting crayons with a BB gun.
Give me a break.
In 360p...

Great stuff, but why does it have to be called: "TEMPUS II: THE FOURTH DIMENSION!" As if some dick with a slo mo camera is doing something besides shooting crayons with a BB gun.

Give me a break.

Thanks for the thought out response MMD. Actually, my father and grandfather owned guns and kept them in the house. They were former marine and army, and definitely believed in the 2nd amendment. My father even gave me a rifle for a birthday as a child and taught me basic safety and maintenance.

But I never saw them use their guns in an emotional outburst to make some argumentative point. They had too much discipline for behavior like that. The guy in the video is clearly very angry and emotional (from the timbre in his voice) before and while using the gun.

As far as the legality of him doing what he was doing. From my experience, cops can make up a charge if they really want to, and maybe they (and child services) would at least bother the guy enough to make sure he thinks twice before brandishing a gun in this manner and putting it on youtube.

Yeah people shoot at things all the time, but a laptop? I know how they are assembled, and there are several layers of components that make up the machine, including many brittle materials that can easily shatter. Not to mention toxic materials like solder, etc. I doubt this guy has been taking laptops down to the quarry for target practice regularly enough to know how they take a hollow point.>> ^MilkmanDan:

>> ^longde:
Thinking about it more, what really bothers me about this video is the gratuitous use of the gun. To display that level of intimidation and violence in his home is one thing, but to broadcast it to other youth in his community is reckless.
One unintentional lesson that kids will take from this is that it's acceptable to wave a gun around and shoot off a few rounds to vent your anger and resolve a problem.
If I were a parent in this community, I would be making a few calls to the authorities.
And I'm the guy who supported belt whipping guy. I think gun guy is way worse than belt beating guy.
(also, how did this genius know that there would be no flying shrapnel from the components in the laptop?)

I fully understand and appreciate your concerns here, but once again I'm on the other side of the fence. Maybe just because I grew up on a farm in a rural area where a very high percentage of households owned at least one firearm and most kids in those homes were taught how to responsibly use a gun.
A lot of people think that there isn't really any justification for owning a gun outside of being a soldier or policeman, and that therefore the only way to practice being responsible with a gun is to simply never own or fire one. I would disagree, but if that is the mindset I'm not going to be able to convince anyone otherwise.
Anyway, I don't see his use of the gun as displaying any "intimidation" or "violence", so I don't have any problem with his posting the video on his daughter's facebook and/or youtube or whatever. By shooting the laptop, he wasn't telling his daughter "straighten up or next time its YOU!" (intimidation), he was telling her that actions have consequences and since the laptop is his property he can do whatever he wants with it -- including destroying it rather than have her feel like she is entitled to it.
There are plenty of freely available videos on the internet (even here on the sift, say) where people use firearms in genuinely reckless and irresponsible ways orders of magnitude beyond this one. And that is before considering ubiquitous reckless or malevolent use of firearms in fictional media like movies, etc.
If you were a parent in his community, you would be welcome to call and complain to the authorities, but they would tell you that he definitely didn't do anything against the law. So you'd pretty much be wasting your breath.
About the risk of flying shrapnel, I think that he "knows" that there wouldn't be any (or at least that the risk is acceptably minute) because he has used firearms before. Part of learning to use a gun responsibly (at least, how I would define responsibly) is shooting at things and seeing what happens to them. You shoot a BB gun at cans or bottles set up on posts. You shoot a rifle or handgun at targets at a shooting range or in a rural area with nothing in front of you. You shoot a shotgun at an empty 2-liter bottle thrown up in the air, or at clay pigeons.
While doing those things, you notice that whatever you are shooting at generally doesn't explode like it does in the movies. If any fragments fly off (not likely), they won't have much mass, they won't be traveling very fast (vastly slower than the bullet), and they will most likely be traveling in the same general direction as the bullet -- not back towards you. Physics dictates that his shooting the laptop was relatively safe, even at close range like that.

>> ^longde:

Thinking about it more, what really bothers me about this video is the gratuitous use of the gun. To display that level of intimidation and violence in his home is one thing, but to broadcast it to other youth in his community is reckless.
One unintentional lesson that kids will take from this is that it's acceptable to wave a gun around and shoot off a few rounds to vent your anger and resolve a problem.
If I were a parent in this community, I would be making a few calls to the authorities.
And I'm the guy who supported belt whipping guy. I think gun guy is way worse than belt beating guy.
(also, how did this genius know that there would be no flying shrapnel from the components in the laptop?)


I fully understand and appreciate your concerns here, but once again I'm on the other side of the fence. Maybe just because I grew up on a farm in a rural area where a very high percentage of households owned at least one firearm and most kids in those homes were taught how to responsibly use a gun.

A lot of people think that there isn't really any justification for owning a gun outside of being a soldier or policeman, and that therefore the only way to practice being responsible with a gun is to simply never own or fire one. I would disagree, but if that is the mindset I'm not going to be able to convince anyone otherwise.

Anyway, I don't see his use of the gun as displaying any "intimidation" or "violence", so I don't have any problem with his posting the video on his daughter's facebook and/or youtube or whatever. By shooting the laptop, he wasn't telling his daughter "straighten up or next time its YOU!" (intimidation), he was telling her that actions have consequences and since the laptop is his property he can do whatever he wants with it -- including destroying it rather than have her feel like she is entitled to it.

There are plenty of freely available videos on the internet (even here on the sift, say) where people use firearms in genuinely reckless and irresponsible ways orders of magnitude beyond this one. And that is before considering ubiquitous reckless or malevolent use of firearms in fictional media like movies, etc.

If you were a parent in his community, you would be welcome to call and complain to the authorities, but they would tell you that he definitely didn't do anything against the law. So you'd pretty much be wasting your breath.

About the risk of flying shrapnel, I think that he "knows" that there wouldn't be any (or at least that the risk is acceptably minute) because he has used firearms before. Part of learning to use a gun responsibly (at least, how I would define responsibly) is shooting at things and seeing what happens to them. You shoot a BB gun at cans or bottles set up on posts. You shoot a rifle or handgun at targets at a shooting range or in a rural area with nothing in front of you. You shoot a shotgun at an empty 2-liter bottle thrown up in the air, or at clay pigeons.

While doing those things, you notice that whatever you are shooting at generally doesn't explode like it does in the movies. If any fragments fly off (not likely), they won't have much mass, they won't be traveling very fast (vastly slower than the bullet), and they will most likely be traveling in the same general direction as the bullet -- not back towards you. Physics dictates that his shooting the laptop was relatively safe, even at close range like that.

@PalmliX

What I was arguing is that I believe I'm safer in a system where no civilians are allowed to carry guns

I generally agree, hence my statement above about rights and safety being opposite ends of the spectrum. It's just that I'd rather have rights than safety.

I find it kind of sad that you think the US 'beats' Canada on some rights

We have a right to arms. Canada does also but it's infeasible to actually practice it, according to you. So yeah, we have that right and you don't.

Sorry I think I'll give up that particular right in exchange for...

I won't give up my rights in exchange for anything. That's insane.

Look, I know we've got a violence problem here, but it's not because we have guns. Vermont, for example, allows people to carry, open or concealed, without need for a permit (according to opencarry.org) and yet in 2009 they had zero murders via firearm and are 4th in the lowest firearm assault rate at 10.2 per 100,000 (from http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state).

DC on the other hand, which is (in)famous for it's highly restrictive gun regulations, has the highest rate of firearm murders (18.84 per 100,000) and the 3rd highest rate of firearm assaults (121.4 per 100,000).

Since I just saw this article this morning, I'll throw it in there too: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-naw-norway-gun-policy-20110724,0,7974761.story

Basically it's pointing out that while Norway has a high rate of gun ownership by European standards, they've also got one of the lowest rates of violence in Europe.

My position is not that we'd be safer if everyone had guns. My position is that the availability of guns is not the problem; something else is (or a combination of things); and so there's no reason to support curtailing gun rights.

I will also say again that I am not a gun nut. I do not own a gun. I do not wish to own a gun. The only guns I've ever fired were water guns, cap guns, BB guns and potato guns. I support certain levels of regulation and I absolutely support taking an individual's gun rights away if they've abused them. I just don't think we ought to have our collective gun rights taken away in the name of safety. More importantly, I really don't think we ought to give up our rights in the name of safety.

@Mcboinkens Actually, I read that coinage has different laws pertaining to them, and that the only legal infraction is to attempt to pass off something as a coin that it is not (slug quarters). You can destroy or do whatever else you want to coins (if you shoot a penny near the rim with a BB gun it makes a tiny saddle).