Unsafe gun handling during Rand Paul Photo Op

[Mousegun]

The only saving grace is that the public probably won't notice, they are used to seeing stupid things done with firearms on TV and in the movies.

It was bad for sure but the above truly is the saving grace unless a news media type picks up on this thread.

 

[JSH1]

The YouTube from a left, side, 9 o'clock angle shows a big orange barrier to Paul's left to restrict gun movement.

The large vertical orange barrier is to Paul's right. (The orange barrier is behind the muzzle of the rifle he shoots.)

In the video from behind look between the instructor's head and Paul's head. You will see two cameramen, one in black and one in blue. There are some barriers to his left but they low to the ground and would not prevent him from shooting the cameramen down range on his left hand side.

 

[cdk8]

It was bad for sure but the above truly is the saving grace unless a news media type picks up on this thread.

If they do we can give it to them straight. This is the outcome of the whole Zero Tolerance anti-gun BS from attempting to remove guns from everywhere and turning them into something exotic rather than a part of our heritage and culture in which respect for safety and understanding is paramount. A bunch of press are crowding around a shoot as if someone had discovered a globster than was proven by NASA to in fact be an alien from outer space that has brought us a new form of fuel that will solve the energy crisis.

At the end of the day, this is a guy shooting some paper. That isn't very special.

 

[Nom de Forum]

[snark] Everyone makes it sound like innocent bystanders were endangered. It was media people taping a political candidate. [/snark]]

That definitely is snark but unfortunately many people sincerely feel little regard for the lives of media people who through ignorance and arrogance, but also by courage and dedication sometimes needlessly and foolishly place themselves in mortal danger. They are still innocent bystanders, even if fools, because they have committed no crime to warrant being shot.

Sam1911 - Ok, that's not safe and not cool, (and an inane political stunt of embarrassing proportions), but nobody got hurt and it probably won't make a whit of difference to the outcomes of any political race.

Shame on him, shame on them ... so anyway, moving on: NEXT!

We will be lucky if the NEXT! is not the video being used as an example to discredit other people claiming to be and supportive of responsible gun owners.

taliv - i don't call swinging the rifle 60 degrees "the slightest error"

I call it an action that can occur in less time (small fractions of a second) than that "instructor" could prevent it and a trigger pull from being completed. That to me is an example of "the slightest of error" as opposed to a 180 degree swing that would be a preventable "gross error".

Judging from a few replies, this thread may turn out to be a good litmus test of who you would feel safe being with if out shooting.

 

[Sam1911]

We will be lucky if the NEXT! is not the video being used as an example to discredit other people claiming to be and supportive of responsible gun owners.

Ok, considering the sound-bite nature of political commentary, and the amount of experience 90% of the US has with gun range safety best practices, and the fact that even a large portion of the members here at a gun-savvy place like THR can't seem to wholeheartedly agree to pillory the guy for this photo op... I'm seeing about zero practical exposure here.

I'm sure Mr. Paul has said and championed 1,000 things that the media and his opponents can ridicule and lampoon and denigrate him for -- things that are serious planks in his campaign and philosophy. I don't see anybody with any sway digging so deep into range etiquette matters as to pull out these couple video stills and try to hang him, or gun rights proponents in general, on a public cross.

If nothing else, it just takes too much explanation and set-up to get the average shmoe to even understand what the problem was.

 

[taliv]

look at the two pictures in post 27

the top requires a little less than 90* move to hit and there is no way anyone is going to prevent it.

look at any NRA square range in the country. there's no instructor there to prevent it.

seriously, look at hte pictures. the guy to the left is not in substantially more danger than the 4 people on the right.

 

[rd_zzyzx]

The ones being unsafe are those trying to get a photograph. Rand is surrounded by people, being told to take aim and then told to fire. Who should have been in charge of the situation? The instructor.

As for those at 10 o'clock, well it is hard to say, if the camera being used as a wide angle lens then those people may not be out as far as they appear.

Any time there is a firearm involved the situation is unsafe, even if you are standing behind the person firing. I saw a person on the line, round chambered, ready to fire, instructor behind them, and the person turns, points the firearm right at the instructor and asks him a question. So, where are you safe? No where.

I see the entire situation as risky, but I don't blame it on Rand.

 

[CoRoMo]

Guys... forget the gun range shooting-stunt, didn't any of you pick up on the fact that he also sent the 70,000-page tax code through a wood chipper, diced it up with a chainsaw, then set it on fire... but... he wasn't wearing any work gloves or hearing protection, and there wasn't a fire extinguisher visible in the fire scene.



You might think this guy gives a bad example to our gun community, but what about the image-harm to all the wood-chipper operators and forestry workers? And don't get me started on an outdoors fire without an extinguisher in hand! This guy should be locked up for sure.

 

[JSH1]

the guy to the left is not in substantially more danger than the 4 people on the right.

How is 15 foot in front of the muzzle at a 45 degree angle not more dangerous than even with the muzzle at a 90 degree angle? I'm talking about the guy in black visible between the instructor and Paul. (Bottom picture post #27)

 

[taliv]

because the instructor is standing right there on the left watching them, so if paul starts to swing that direction, he could reach his hand out and stop the rifle. he cannot react on the right side.

and generally, because like rd zzy just said, people can and do turn around 180* and point the behind the line faster than people around them can react

 

[gun_with_a_view]

Rand Paul who then fired at the tax code

If anyone was hit on the firing line, it was worth the sacrifice if the target was killed.

 

[JSH1]

because the instructor is standing right there on the left watching them, so if paul starts to swing that direction, he could reach his hand out and stop the rifle. he cannot react on the right side.

The instructor's hands are at his side. I highly doubt he can reach up and grab the rifle before Paul can pivot 45 degrees.

I'll stick with the standard that having anyone in front of the line of fire is unsafe.

 

[taliv]

i recommend you not attend the National Matches at Camp Perry then.

 

[alexander45]

Only thing that bugs me more than the people behind the firing line is the fact that a supposedly pro gun politico doesn't know how a damn bit of glass works.

 

[barnbwt]

Guys, normal range rules are there to allow a few RO's to deal with numerous shooters. There was an RO, fixated on Rand, literally three feet from him, ready to grab the gun from his hands if he did anything stupid.

The only 'stupidity' here was Rand not getting his familiarization in before the cameras started rolling, making him look like a total newb (which he probably is, and good on him for not just 'winging it' and actually doing something unsafe).

Think also about how each and every one of you felt the first few times you went to the range, then combine the stress of that with a photo-op. If those journalists (being just as ignorant of firearms as anyone often is) had walked out there on their own while everyone was making sure Rand wasn't shooting himself in the foot, they could have easily been overlooked (were it not for the centered camera angle, I would have).

The only real safety issue was that the RO's, probably under pressure from Rand's PR dudes, allowed so many people to crowd around him and the firing line in the first place. Sort of understandable, as the whole purpose was a photo-op, and the only good photos are at a 90deg or less angle from the front of the shooter. It still was clearly getting beyond the ability of the RO's to control the situation, though I wouldn't say anything was ever out of their control simply due to the grand total one shooter they were responsible for.

In summary, the whole incident was so massively more controlled than any range experience I've seen, that it could not have possibly become truly unsafe, or even hazardous. John Kerry's token duck-hunt was likely a far more hazardous affair.

"Only thing that bugs me more than the people behind the firing line is the fact that a supposedly pro gun politico doesn't know how a damn bit of glass works."
To be fair, the RO was giving a very standard instruction speech heard everywhere, and who knows how much of it Rand actually needed. Probably just both of them covering their bases so they didn't do something foolish on camera (and possibly to drive home that Rand was 'shooting safely' and not shooting from the hip, as it were)

TCB

 

[Nom de Forum]

There was an RO, fixated on Rand, literally three feet from him, ready to grab the gun from his hands if he did anything stupid.

I have run many company and battalion qualification ranges. Three feet is not close enough. I think there are people posting here who just don't realize how quickly a ND can occur.

The only 'stupidity' here was Rand not getting his familiarization in before the cameras started rolling, making him look like a total newb (which he probably is, and good on him for not just 'winging it' and actually doing something unsafe).

Not by a long shot (pun intended) was that the only "stupidity" demonstrated.

Think also about how each and every one of you felt the first few times you went to the range, then combine the stress of that with a photo-op. If those journalists (being just as ignorant of firearms as anyone often is) had walked out there on their own while everyone was making sure Rand wasn't shooting himself in the foot, they could have easily been overlooked (were it not for the centered camera angle, I would have).

Rand Paul's "stress" of a photo-op does not excuse him, after all it is something he has years of experience in being comfortable with, and would not be excepted as an excuse if he shot someone.

The only real safety issue was that the RO's, probably under pressure from Rand's PR dudes, allowed so many people to crowd around him and the firing line in the first place. Sort of understandable, as the whole purpose was a photo-op, and the only good photos are at a 90deg or less angle from the front of the shooter. It still was clearly getting beyond the ability of the RO's to control the situation, though I wouldn't say anything was ever out of their control simply due to the grand total one shooter they were responsible for.

Those R.O.s have can not be excused because there was only one shooter. On the contrary that makes their negligence even more damning. The ease of how those journalists could be overlooked would not be an excuse the police and surviving family members except.

In summary, the whole incident was so massively more controlled than any range experience I've seen, that it could not have possibly become truly unsafe, or even hazardous.

It surprises me you think that was such a controlled range. Considering the distance between Rand Paul and the nearest R.O. it would be 50/50 at best that the R.O. could physically stop Paul before his muzzle moved 180 degrees .

"Only thing that bugs me more than the people behind the firing line is the fact that a supposedly pro gun politico doesn't know how a damn bit of glass works."
To be fair, the RO was giving a very standard instruction speech heard everywhere, and who knows how much of it Rand actually needed. Probably just both of them covering their bases so they didn't do something foolish on camera (and possibly to drive home that Rand was 'shooting safely' and not shooting from the hip, as it were)

I seriously doubt they did much planning at all for what would happen at the firing line. If they had done some planning the R.O.'s "very standard instruction speech" and handling procedures for the rifle would have been formal and well rehearsed just like what I and others have given countless times. That would have appeared far more polished and professional to the television audience. The R.O. appeared to me to have been star struck and "winging it". What I saw would have been possibly career ending in the Army and in civilian competition would have gotten the R.O. dismissed and shooter disqualified.

 

[strambo]

nevermind

 

[SuperNaut]

Meh.

 

[Red Wind]

nevermind

That says it all.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Yup, this thread is a good litmus test of who you would feel safe being with if out shooting.

 

[Bama Drifter]

From that angle - No.

From the angle I linked? Yes, there was a very clear violation of normal range rules.

Ummm... yeah, no. Not really a big deal w/ highly controlled setting; camera crews are free to take any vantage point they want and more than likely state police or local LEOs on site for this media stunt. This is more or less a Barnum & Bailey type of outing than a typical live shooting range. Would this fly @ any local range I frequent? Heck, naw! Does it really matter in the slightest? Same answer: Nope!

 

[barnbwt]

"I have run many company and battalion qualification ranges. Three feet is not close enough. I think there are people posting here who just don't realize how quickly a ND can occur."

So...chained barrel to the table and the RO holding the rifle up to his shoulder like a father teaching an 8 year old?

I don't know what sort of qual candidates ya'll get in the military, but anyone capable of following the simplest of commands can safely do what he did, which is keep the barrel down range at the target, and fire controllably, as he did. I can understand "The Line" being gospel when you have a row of giddy new shooters whom you can't watch or be near simultaneously, since it is extremely unlikely any circumstance would get them shot should they stay behind it, but that's not the same as being in front of it being necessarily a criminally reckless act. Speeding on a crowded interstate is dangerous, speeding on an empty stretch of straight empty I-20 is not. I guess not everybody's parents made them harmlessly break a law as a child as a life lesson.

If it was so likely and possible that he would swing a 180, then there was no where those guys could have been standing that was safe. A single target was 10 yards away. For such a simple task, the kinds of panic motions you describe are simply implausible. So implausible, that they are no more likely than other possibilities that would have doomed anyone wherever they were standing (like the gun possessing Rand upon his taking hold of it, causing him to swing 180 degrees and murder everyone in the area). He's shooting a static target ten yards directly in front him not, not sporting clays (you wanna talk about a sport that does potentially endanger everyone in the area...and yet is pretty much accident free regardless of all the various skill levels and shooters involved in a highly-dynamic environment)

I know a lot of folks don't hold the man in high regard, but seriously. He's a grown, educated man, who has supposedly shot informally at some point in the past. The RO wasn't explaining what the trigger or muzzle discipline was, he was explaining how to use the AR, which Paul was evidently not the least familiar with.

This whole stink smacks of when Cruz did his Youtube stunt, and everyone started ragging on him for supposedly calling an AR15 a "machinegun." Or Obama's shotgun thing, even though it was totally disingenuous. You wanna know why politicians hate posturing for us gunnies? This stuff makes it hardly worth their trouble.

Anyone 'happy' Rand chose an AR15 to do this stunt and not a Benelli O/U? Talk about missing the forest for the trees

"Yup, this thread is a good litmus test of who you would feel safe being with if out shooting."
Indeed. The folks with experience quickly spinning around and firing wildly in random directions would certainly give me pause

TCB

Sheesh. Video gamers don't have the type of knee-jerk NDs ya'll are so afeared of, and that's when there's no consequences to speak of.

 

[xxjumbojimboxx]

Who cares? The anti's don't even know that's an unsafe practice, and its camera men for Pete's sake. They knew what they were doing. We know what they're doing, and we also know that the likelihood of one of them getting hit is minimal. They did what they needed to get their shot. Big whoop.

 

[Jeff White]

What you have here is a tragedy waiting to happen. You have an inexperienced shooter (Paul), you have a director who is attempting to shoot part of a campaign ad. You have various and sundry members of the media shooting video and still photos.

There is ONE visible safety officer who is attempting to show the shooter how to manipulate the weapon.

How many potential distractions do you think there were, some of them within arms reach of the shooter. Someone speaks to the shooter, says; "Hey Dr Paul look over here!" So he can frame a picture, Paul swings that direction with his finger on the trigger, what do you think could happen?

Republican Presidential candidate kills reporter while filming campaign commercial is the headline.

There were plenty of ways to film that safely, but what I saw in that video certainly wasn't one of them.

 

[SuperNaut]

This is really going to affect my vote.