Brian Kemp for Georgia Governor

[zinfamous]

Sure, right after you similarly rage about how these folks in the ad below are setting a bad driving example to others. I already called the candidate stupid, but I guess you want to double down with the "OMG he's not demonstrating gun safety in his ad" like you give an actual flying fuck about that.

I thought mental health and "responsible gun ownership" were the current twin pillars of the Republican party on how to completely fix the US's current gun murder problem. This guy, who wants to be a governor, demonstrates none of those principles in this ad.

Why wouldn't I give a flying fuck about that? You say this guy is stupid--why do you call him stupid?

 

[IJTSSG]

It's beyond hilarious that there's still people in here arguing that there was unsafe firearms handling in the video. There's actually 30 seconds of video evidence to the contrary and you're still shrieking it at the top of your lungs.

One more time - It is a silly video but there is nothing unsafe about the way he handled the firearm. Period.

Zinny - I'm still waiting on the time stamp. LOL.

 

[glenn1]

The candidate's firearms handling skills are illustrative of his stupidity. The whole scenario of the ad is stupid.

We don't often agree but this time it's 100%.

 

[mikeymikec]

It's beyond hilarious that there's still people in here arguing that there was unsafe firearms handling in the video. There's actually 30 seconds of video evidence to the contrary and you're still shrieking it at the top of your lungs.

One more time - It is a silly video but there is nothing unsafe about the way he handled the firearm. Period.

One more time - people have cited evidence supporting their claim that it constitutes unsafe firearm handling, whereas you've cited nothing except one piece of evidence that actually states the opposite of what you claimed (the four tenets of firearms safety)

The only point I agree with you on is that he didn't load the gun, but that isn't relevant for the reasons previously stated.

 

[zinfamous]

It's beyond hilarious that there's still people in here arguing that there was unsafe firearms handling in the video. There's actually 30 seconds of video evidence to the contrary and you're still shrieking it at the top of your lungs.

One more time - It is a silly video but there is nothing unsafe about the way he handled the firearm. Period.

Zinny - I'm still waiting on the time stamp. LOL.

Wow, you still didn't see him aim the gun at the kid? That is strange.

Nothing wrong: period. Again, I can only assume that this is exactly how you teach your kids to handle firearms. I think we need to confiscate your guns before you and your kids accidentally kill each other or some innocent bystanders. It seems inevitable at this point.

 

[IJTSSG]

One more time - people have cited evidence supporting their claim that it constitutes unsafe firearm handling, whereas you've cited nothing except one piece of evidence that actually states the opposite of what you claimed (the four tenets of firearms safety)

The only point I agree with you on is that he didn't load the gun, but that isn't relevant for the reasons previously stated.

List the four basic tenets and tell me which ones he violated. Time stamp the video with each of the four.

Wow, you still didn't see him aim the gun at the kid? That is strange.

Nothing wrong: period. Again, I can only assume that this is exactly how you teach your kids to handle firearms. I think we need to confiscate your guns before you and your kids accidentally kill each other or some innocent bystanders. It seems inevitable at this point.

I don't see it because it never happened. No one else see's it either because it didn't happen.

If you want my guns, come and get 'em. I'll give you directions. LOL.

 

[Thebobo]

I'm neither sad nor angry Dr. Freud but nice try. Aggressive? You bet.

Freud would say Aggressive

 

[mikeymikec]

List the four basic tenets and tell me which ones he violated. Time stamp the video with each of the four.

This argument has already been made, you just chose to ignore it, but sure, I'll humour you:

The post where the tenets were listed:
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/brian-kemp-for-georgia-governor.2544863/page-2#post-39410093

Rule 1 : All guns are always loaded.
Rule 2: Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
Rule 3: Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
Rule 4: Be sure of your target.

Rule 1 & 2, 00:24. https://youtu.be/4ABRz_epvic?t=24

Take your pick as to what he's pointing the gun at:

1) Directly at the minor (definitely the implication of the video, the 'joke' revolves around intimidation), and he is clearly making eye contact with the minor so if you want to argue that it's not pointed at the minor then he's not looking where he's pointing it, so rule 4 as well in that scenario).
2) Very near the minor (the discharging of a shotgun at that range could damage the minor, if you want to argue that point then please, be my guest and sit that close and at that angle to a shotgun that is about to be fired without taking any protective precautions).
3) Very likely anything in that room is something he isn't willing to destroy.

 

[zinfamous]

I don't see it because it never happened. No one else see's it either because it didn't happen.

If you want my guns, come and get 'em. I'll give you directions. LOL.

Great! Can I bring my guns, too? It will be fun!

 

[Noah Abrams]

That young man is a "kid"? That tells us a lot about the infantilization and over coddling of people these days. Leading to a sense of self entitlement all their lives. Sad.

 

[mikeymikec]

Great! Can I bring my guns, too? It will be fun!

Have fun you crazy kids. Remember: It's not gay if your guns don't touch.

 

[IJTSSG]

This argument has already been made, you just chose to ignore it, but sure, I'll humour you:

The post where the tenets were listed:
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/brian-kemp-for-georgia-governor.2544863/page-2#post-39410093



Rule 1 & 2, 00:24. https://youtu.be/4ABRz_epvic?t=24

Take your pick as to what he's pointing the gun at:

1) Directly at the minor (definitely the implication of the video, the 'joke' revolves around intimidation), and he is clearly making eye contact with the minor so if you want to argue that it's not pointed at the minor then he's not looking where he's pointing it, so rule 4 as well in that scenario).
2) Very near the minor (the discharging of a shotgun at that range could damage the minor, if you want to argue that point then please, be my guest and sit that close and at that angle to a shotgun that is about to be fired without taking any protective precautions).
3) Very likely anything in that room is something he isn't willing to destroy.

1. The gun was never pointed directly at the "minor". There's no requirement in Rule 4 that you have to continuously look at where the gun is pointing. Example: I carry a gun in a holster, slung up or down or in the crook of my arm pointed up, down, front depends on what I'm doing. Sometimes walking, sometimes jogging. In order not to run into shit, I don't constantly look at where the gun is pointed.
No safety violation found. Strike One.

2. So now we're moving the goalposts. OK. Hearing damage? Not from an unloaded gun, they had no intention of firing. I don't wear hearing protection when I clean my guns. Do you? Why not? Pro Tip: Pellets or shot cannot make radical course changes when they leave the muzzle. They're not little torpedoes, that wasn't a sci-fi movie.
No safety violation found. Strike Two.

3. Did he violate a rule or not? Innocent until proven guilty. I vote note.
No safety violation found. Strike 3.

You know what three strikes means. I'm sure you're used to it.

 

[mikeymikec]

1. The gun was never pointed directly at the "minor". There's no requirement in Rule 4 that you have to continuously look at where the gun is pointing. Example: I carry a gun in a holster, slung up or down or in the crook of my arm pointed up, down, front depends on what I'm doing. Sometimes walking, sometimes jogging. In order not to run into shit, I don't constantly look at where the gun is pointed.
No safety violation found. Strike One.

I included point 1 because a number of people beg to differ on whether the gun was pointed at the minor. IMO there's so little in it that it's a safety violation either way.

2. So now we're moving the goalposts. OK. Hearing damage? Not from an unloaded gun, they had no intention of firing. I don't wear hearing protection when I clean my guns. Do you? Why not? Pro Tip: Pellets or shot cannot make radical course changes when they leave the muzzle. They're not little torpedoes, that wasn't a sci-fi movie.
No safety violation found. Strike Two.

First tenet of firearms safety: Assume the gun is loaded. That's just aside from the fact that when I was trained in firearms safety, I was taught never to point it at another person unless you intend to fire for the obvious reason that if you've made a mistake and the gun is loaded and you accidentally fire, then to say "safety violation" is an understatement.
No goalposts have been moved, I covered both scenarios because of the difference in opinion and that's all there is to it.
If you're cleaning any firearm I'm aware of then it is not sufficiently assembled to fire.

3. Did he violate a rule or not? Innocent until proven guilty. I vote note.
No safety violation found. Strike 3.

That makes no sense, nor are assumptions made in firearms safety. For example, you shouldn't hand someone a loaded firearm (therefore you verify its state), AND the person receiving the firearm should verify its state, because mistakes do happen. More checks make mistakes less likely. Why on earth would you point a firearm at or near another person without intent to shoot them? It's idiotic to boot.

- edit - in case your third point was in response to my third point, it doesn't look like he's in a room full of worthless junk, so your point doesn't really make much sense if it was in response to my third point.

 

[Jhhnn]

That young man is a "kid"? That tells us a lot about the infantilization and over coddling of people these days. Leading to a sense of self entitlement all their lives. Sad.

Desperately lame. If he's dating a minor girl who lives at home with her father he's likely a teenager like her, a "kid".

And back to your entitlement schtick, too. I wonder what kind of entitlement the old bastard feels to threaten the kid with a gun... you know, a kid who might end up as the father of his grandchildren...

You know Kemp is a maroon on so many levels that it's hard to quantify, right?

 

[Noah Abrams]

Desperately lame. If he's dating a minor girl who lives at home with her father he's likely a teenager like her, a "kid".

And back to your entitlement schtick, too. I wonder what kind of entitlement the old bastard feels to threaten the kid with a gun... you know, a kid who might end up as the father of his grandchildren...

You know Kemp is a maroon on so many levels that it's hard to quantify, right?

I don’t know this guy from a hole in the wall and it’s a stupid redneck kind of ad.

Minor and being young man or woman are not mutually exclusive. The first one is a legal term. The second is a common sense biological term.

 

[glenn1]

Wow, you still didn't see him aim the gun at the kid? That is strange.

Nothing wrong: period. Again, I can only assume that this is exactly how you teach your kids to handle firearms. I think we need to confiscate your guns before you and your kids accidentally kill each other or some innocent bystanders. It seems inevitable at this point.

It's not an NRA training video. I think the content in the video is extremely tasteless and does indeed making joking matters out of things that aren't really suitable for jokes (e.g. brandishing a firearm around potential romantic suitors of your children) but that's not really the issue as I see it, we can point out tasteless ads all day long. This is no more about gun safety rules than ads that put a crosshairs over something is saying “you should sniper this.” Sometimes a graphic is just a graphic and a stupid and outdated joke about overprotective dad is just stupid and outdated joke.

The point should be that a credible, presumably mainstream political candidate both himself lacks the judgment needed not to pander this way, AND that he thinks (perhaps correctly) that his target audience will appreciate this ad and reward him for it with votes.

 

[IJTSSG]

It's an ad. It's supposed to be funny. No one was really threatened. No one was ever in any danger of getting shot.

You can quit clutching your pearls. Everything is really OK. I promise.

 

[Noah Abrams]

It's not an NRA training video. I think the content in the video is extremely tasteless and does indeed making joking matters out of things that aren't really suitable for jokes (e.g. brandishing a firearm around potential romantic suitors of your children) but that's not really the issue as I see it, we can point out tasteless ads all day long. This is no more about gun safety rules than ads that put a crosshairs over something is saying “you should sniper this.” Sometimes a graphic is just a graphic and a stupid and outdated joke about overprotective dad is just stupid and outdated joke.

The point should be that a credible, presumably mainstream political candidate both himself lacks the judgment needed not to pander this way, AND that he thinks (perhaps correctly) that his target audience will appreciate this ad and reward him for it with votes.

Good post. Sums it up entirely.

As for the outrage, we live in an outage an hour culture. Maybe every 30 minutes