Just for shooting ranges! Everywhere else it's okay!

Your video, Firing bazookas at an illegal Cambodian shooting range, 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 4 Badge!

An illegal shooting range?

You're telling me Cambodia actually has gun-control laws?

Harlequinn I would say you are correct. Only metal spoons aren't harmful to anyone (accept those like myself with a metal allergy..) and the guns that will eventually be unavailable can mow down a dozen people in about 30 seconds, blasting them into bits. So, it's a bit different.

I personally feel the solution to 'assault weapons' is to make them available at gun ranges. That way folks who want to be able to fire them, can still have access to them, but they are still restricted to have in ones home and thus cannot be used in violence. Just the way some shooting ranges offer military weapons a civilian cannot get access to any other way.

And for the record I'm relatively pro-gun. I don't own any but I grew up with them, received my first as a birthday present when I was 10 and my mother owns two and her boyfriend makes his own rifles for use in competition.

If congress manages to only do one thing about the gun violence in this nation, I'd personally rather see it be a national gun registry that would allow instant background checks at gun shows/etc. You know things are bad when someone on the terror watch list can buy an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine, armor piercing bullets and a flack jacket out of the back of a van and it's perfectly legal in some states. That's an extreme example I grant, but not unrealistic.

Hypothetical:
Lets say a few people started carrying weapons at schools and wherever.
Some random kid comes in and starts shooting.
One of the kids with concealed weapons manage to stay calm, get cover, and unholster their gun. He tries to get in a shot, and in doing so, another innocent kid with a gun sees him and mistakes him for another gunman as well. This kid then shoots the other kid. Repeat until everybody with guns are dead.

Why does everybody seem to know that they immediately can assess the situation well enough to not kill other innocent people that are also trying to save the situation?

It is a fantasy. It might occasionally come true, due to luck, circumstances or whatever, but that doesn't mean that should be the go-to method.
Guns should be used for hunting. Fully automatic weapons have nothing to do with hunting, and should be banned. Permit should require checkups at a shooting range.

Run. Hide. Call 911. Don't carry guns!

Sheesh.. Can't believe we're having this discussion..

On Oct. 1, 1997, Luke Woodham, 16, part of a satanic cult, stabbed and bludgeoned his mother before driving her car to Pearl High School in Pearl, Miss., where he shot dead two students and wounded seven others with a rifle he made no attempt to conceal. He then got back into his mother’s car and planned to go to Pearl Junior High School to kill some more. But assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a .45-caliber pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham.

On Jan. 16, 2002, Peter Odighizuwa, 43, of Nigeria, went to the Appalachian School of Law campus in Virginia with a handgun and killed three and wounded three others. At the sound of gunfire, two other students – both police officers – retrieved guns from their cars. Meanwhile, another police officer and former Marine jumped Odighizuwa and disarmed him by the time the other officers got to the scene.

On Aug. 23, 1995, a band of crack cocaine addicts entered a store in Muskegon, Mich., with a plan to kill everyone and steal enough cash and jewelry to feed their habit. One member of the gang shot store owner Clare Cooper in the back four times. He still managed to grab his shotgun and fire on the gang as they fled. They were all apprehended.

On Dec. 9, 2007, a 24-year-old gunman named Matthew Murray launched an attack on the congregants of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs that left two victims dead. A former police officer, Jeanne Assam, a member of the security team for the church, shot Murray 10 times, killing him, as he was shooting at her. Murray had killed four others at a church 70 miles away earlier in the day.

On July 24, 2012, Richard Gable Stevens rented a rifle at a shooting range in Santa Clara, Calif., and herded three employees out the door, saying he intended to kill them. One of the employees, however, was carrying a .45-caliber handgun and shot the assailant.

On Dec. 17, 1991, two men armed with stolen pistols herded 20 customers and employees of a Shoney’s restaurant in Anniston, Ala., into a walk-in refrigerator and locked it so they could rob the establishment. However, one customer was armed with a .45-caliber handgun hidden under a table. He shot one of the gunmen dead. The other robber, who was holding the manager of the restaurant at gunpoint, began firing at the customer. But he was wounded critically by return fire, ending the incident.

On July 13, 2009, an armed man entered the Golden Food Market in south Richmond, shooting and wounding a clerk while firing at store patrons. He was shot by another customer who had a concealed-carry permit, likely saving the lives of eight other people in the store.

On July 29, 2012, Charles Conner shot and killed two people and their dogs at the Peach Tree RV park in Early, Texas. Vic Stacy got a call from one of the neighbors, got his .357 magnum and shot Conner as he fired upon the first police officer to arrive at the scene. Stacy was credited with saving the life of the officer.

The truth is that every single day mass murders are averted by armed civilian

Yet, every time there is a horrendous slaughter like we saw at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, there is a knee-jerk outcry for stricter control of guns.

taken from http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/how-to-stop-the-slaughter-of-the-innocents/#oA9kiFClUvLJ8gIK.99

I was raised around guns, I've been trained with guns through the Hunter Core program. Purely for hunting game. (not human targets on the shooting range - mostly tin cans and paper circle targets.)

I've seen rampant gun use by teens because they thought guns were cool. I've seen my dog get his eye shot out because the neighbor kid didn't know the gun he just loaded was loaded. I've seen powder burns up the arm of a friend who thought it would be cool to saw off a shot gun and fire it. I was standing there when a good friend fired a rifle and the barrel exploded showering us all in shrapnel as it ripped apart his ear drums.

I was trained to handle guns, how to hold them, and all the safety and respect that anyone needs to handle guns. But that doesn't change the fact that they can be dangerous.

I live in Canada, yes, I could go out and get a gun any time I wanted, but our culture on guns is different. I don't feel the need to own one and I know the guy next to me isn't holding a concealed one. I have never let my kids have any toy gun that looked like a gun. (Nerf is ok) Guns are never toys - ever - and I've taught my kids that their entire life, just like matches and fire aren't toys. You just don't mess around with them.

I don't own a gun now nor do I ever see myself owning one. I like the culture of not needing to own one. I can understand a rifle and a shotgun for hunting (locked in a gun safe when not used.) I don't understand and cannot support the necessity for handguns and automatic weapons. Even semi-automatic weapons are unnecessary. Having an Uzi is just plain ridiculous as it's only intended use is for killing humans. That's just how I feel.

On the flip side....

I do understand the need for a militia. They are an integral part of a free society. the last defense against invasion and more so against government forces when the military is turned against the people.

I just don't believe military weapons should be kept in a home environment. There are any number of places they can be stored but at the very least - a proper gun locker with a lock is the only alternative. I don't care whether you have kids living in the home or not. I also don't think anyone should be in possession of military weapons unless they are registered with the militia.

>> ^Hive13:

So you want a legitimate reason to carry around a .22. Maybe they just bought it and are walking home. Maybe they are walking to a shooting range. Maybe they are going small game hunting with their relative and are headed to his house. Maybe they just want to carry around a gun and show it off.

Maybe to a gun enthusiast those are the kind of things that spring to mind. To non-enthusiasts (which I guess is most people) it just looks like you're carrying around a machine that's solely designed to kill things.

I'd rather you didn't.

Yeah, after re-watching it, I heard the part where he mentions it's a .22. That does look like a bad ass-gun though.

Edit: I meant to say a bad-ass gun, NOT a bad ass-gun. Nobody likes an ass-gun, especially one of inferior quality.

>> ^Hive13:

>> ^ShakeyMcBones:
I'm all for gun ownership, 2nd Amendment, etc, but I can't think of a legitimate reason to carry an MP5 around on the street like that. Except for trolling police officers, obviously.

It is a .22 long rifle. It isn't an MP5. I know, I own one. Sure, it looks awesomely MP5-ish and that's exactly why the cop wanted to inspect it, which he did, and returned it back to them without another thought.
The 2nd amendment grants and most states have full open carry laws. I would be much more worried about a guy carrying around a concealed .45 semi-auto pistol or a pump-action shotgun than two dipshits with a .22.
So you want a legitimate reason to carry around a .22. Maybe they just bought it and are walking home. Maybe they are walking to a shooting range. Maybe they are going small game hunting with their relative and are headed to his house. Maybe they just want to carry around a gun and show it off. That's why we have open carry protection at the federal and state levels.
Now, in this case, they were clearly doing it for a police reaction because they Googled some factoids about open carry and were gunning (yeah, sorry about the pun) for a controversial YouTube video.

>> ^ShakeyMcBones:

I'm all for gun ownership, 2nd Amendment, etc, but I can't think of a legitimate reason to carry an MP5 around on the street like that. Except for trolling police officers, obviously.


It is a .22 long rifle. It isn't an MP5. I know, I own one. Sure, it looks awesomely MP5-ish and that's exactly why the cop wanted to inspect it, which he did, and returned it back to them without another thought.

The 2nd amendment grants and most states have full open carry laws. I would be much more worried about a guy carrying around a concealed .45 semi-auto pistol or a pump-action shotgun than two dipshits with a .22.

So you want a legitimate reason to carry around a .22. Maybe they just bought it and are walking home. Maybe they are walking to a shooting range. Maybe they are going small game hunting with their relative and are headed to his house. Maybe they just want to carry around a gun and show it off. That's why we have open carry protection at the federal and state levels.

Now, in this case, they were clearly doing it for a police reaction because they Googled some factoids about open carry and were gunning (yeah, sorry about the pun) for a controversial YouTube video.

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.

>> ^hpqp:

Am I the only one whose first reaction when seeing the cannonball hole was "FAKE!!" ?

Tbh I had no idea a cannonball could do that kind of damage. I thought thay travelled a lot slower than 1000ft/s. Something with that kind of mass travelling at close to the speed of sound. I think I'd make sure there was a mountain or something between me and the nearest settlement when firing that thing.

And its not that surprising it missed those trash cans. A spherical projectile with no rifling? Yah, that shits gonna go anywhere it fucking pleases.

In a semi-related note my mum was missed by less than a metre by a bullet from a nearby shooting range when she was a teenager. I almost didn't exist due to similar accident as this

guess that's the reason why some countries outlaw a) public shooting ranges and b) shotguns.

You should see him at the throwing star shooting range after work.