He was most-likely trying to kill the guy at close range, with a blank gun..(Wait!?? Is that a blank gun?? Looks like a 25-auto to me)
I'd hasten to guess that it's relatively easy for someone determined, with the premeditation required for a act like a public assassination, to obtain a proper tool for the job in Bulgaria.

What you are witnessing here is a bunch of pissed-off cunts in suits kicking the ever-loving shit out of a disturbed retard (look in the guy's eyes)....Nah, watching again it looks like simple surprise at the misfire of his GAS PISTOL? Geez!


Camerman @ 1:01 - "Here, help gramps up there so he can stamp on the guy's face, I'll hold his leg!!"

Actually it's even more bizarre. As radx mentioned it wasn't a gun, but a gas pistol; a replica which can only fire tear gas rounds or blanks.

Blanks can be fatal at very close range, but it's far from a sure thing. I can't really guess what he was trying to accomplish. Possibly just crazy and inept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_pistol

http://www.chron.com/news/world/article/Gas-pistol-pointed-at-Bulgaria-party-leader-4207697.php

>> ^Sniper007:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
The red ball is likely the heat glow of the object it hit, which doesn't mean an explosion, but incandescence. Lightning itself is glowing because of the incandescent effect of 30,000K temperatures on the gasses of the air + the refraction of air itself. Many of the objects in an around our houses are very rich in carbon, and carbon glows red, orange and yellow depending on the temperature. Add in the very white effect of lightning at close range and wallah, you got yourself a pretty red/white "explosion". That is my guess!

Isn't the "incandescent effect of a 30,000k temperaturre object" one portion of what comprises an "explosion"? Or to phrase it another way, if that wasn't an explosion, then what is? It seems like it was a rapid expansion of air which produced a burst of light and sound... AKA an explosion(?)


Absolutely correct, I used sloppy language, I meant it wasn't combustion (such is the meaning of explosion when we normally talk about it). Thunder is most surely the result of an explosion of air expanded by plasma. Good catch!

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

The red ball is likely the heat glow of the object it hit, which doesn't mean an explosion, but incandescence. Lightning itself is glowing because of the incandescent effect of 30,000K temperatures on the gasses of the air + the refraction of air itself. Many of the objects in an around our houses are very rich in carbon, and carbon glows red, orange and yellow depending on the temperature. Add in the very white effect of lightning at close range and wallah, you got yourself a pretty red/white "explosion". That is my guess!


Isn't the "incandescent effect of a 30,000k temperaturre object" one portion of what comprises an "explosion"? Or to phrase it another way, if that wasn't an explosion, then what is? It seems like it was a rapid expansion of air which produced a burst of light and sound... AKA an explosion(?)

The red ball is likely the heat glow of the object it hit, which doesn't mean an explosion, but incandescence. Lightning itself is glowing because of the incandescent effect of 30,000K temperatures on the gasses of the air + the refraction of air itself. Many of the objects in an around our houses are very rich in carbon, and carbon glows red, orange and yellow depending on the temperature. Add in the very white effect of lightning at close range and wallah, you got yourself a pretty red/white "explosion". That is my guess!

That was really close range.

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.

Firing a rifle at a flat(ish) target at close range in a small concrete room seems dangerous enough.

edit: Er... also noticed the safety glasses on his head.

In other news, several paragliders in nepal have been reporting vultures following them at close range and trying to mount their hands.

Very cool!

>> ^marinara:

found gunshot residue on his hand, also gunshot detection system supports the police story.
fix the description too


Gunshot residue is hardly science. The police officer that rolled him over could've contaminated his hands, one of the shooters could've purposely contaminated his hands with his own, Harding could've been shot at close range with his hands up, or Harding could've previously shot a gun earlier in the day.

The gunshot detection system actually proves the police story is bunk. The guy fires at them, they shoot him down 2 seconds later and they can't find a gun?

That's an appalling one but there's competition from bigger leagues around the world.

Still I just don't see how even with blasting the ball that he still managed to loft it high enough from that close range. Bizarre.

>> ^Fusionaut:

They are shooting off blanks. If they were shooting live rounds there would be more than just a beret on the ground.


Definitely blanks, but I'm impressed with his composure. Those things still hurt at close range.

.027kJ of force applied to 1" diameter of surface area needed to break skull bone. This is 1.25kJ. Even considering the drop off due to distance and air resistance, it would definitely crack a skull and would likely lodge itself in someone's brain. The temple is one of the few places where a small puncture can kill someone. Ergo: Don't build this then shoot someone in the head with it.

>> ^chicchorea:

LMFAO...cafe everywhere.
Of course, a GRF(Gibsonesque Rail Fletcher),...I want....
>> ^BoneRemake:
>> ^chicchorea:
With the energy demonstrated, except for shot to temple at close range perhaps, not lethal.
Still, with refinement....

I formally disagree.
You can poison tip the end, give it a barb or two, assemble some fashion of exploding tip.
Or make the projectile more sleek and pointed to go through or between a rib.
or bleed out... gangrene..
lots of ways to die from this thing, I wish not to count thee ways though.

LMFAO...cafe everywhere.

Of course, a GRF(Gibsonesque Rail Fletcher),...I want....
>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^chicchorea:
With the energy demonstrated, except for shot to temple at close range perhaps, not lethal.
Still, with refinement....

I formally disagree.
You can poison tip the end, give it a barb or two, assemble some fashion of exploding tip.
Or make the projectile more sleek and pointed to go through or between a rib.
or bleed out... gangrene..
lots of ways to die from this thing, I wish not to count thee ways though.