The fail is strong with this one.

[churchmouse]

ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.

Violating that is improper gun handling.

Is there any positive reason to violate or ignore something so simple and reasonable?

Is there any negative excuse that would even begin to make sense?

No, there simply isn't.

Bingo.

 

[Lelliott8]

Nope, which is exact why you're pointing it.

So you're telling me it would be safer if you did not point your gun at the threat? Don't we also need to have a good line of fire to avoid hitting people who are not threats? When we point our gun at a deadly threat, we are taking into account our own safety and the safety of those around us. No rules broken.

 

[Thor]

Just want to take this opportunity to say thank you to all the "Mr. Obvious" posters.

This is INGO so who are they?

 

[ATM]

So you're telling me it would be safer if you did not point your gun at the threat? Don't we also need to have a good line of fire to avoid hitting people who are not threats? When we point our gun at a deadly threat, we are taking into account our own safety and the safety of those around us. No rules broken.

This is precisely why I would shout, move to tackle (or possibly shoot) someone for pointing a gun in an unsafe direction, THEY HAVE BECOME A THREAT.

I'd only offer a gentle questioning and coaching if I noticed them violating either of the next two while pointing it in a safe direction. I don't just threaten people for any old violation of proper gun handling. That would be absurd.

And, un-libertarian.

 

[hopper68]

What happened to their faces?

Their faces were obscured to protect the guilty.

 

[ahutchinson317]

WTF

 

[foszoe]

It's a 2D image. A good photographer could make it appear to be pointed directly at when actually it is pointed up and in front of the other person.

Does anyone see deflection in the skin from the gun?

 

[oldpink]

 

[RiNo6589]

It still amazes me how people who claim themselves to be responsible gun owners do things like this.

 

[Denny347]

I assume you are arresting/citing them for a violation of IC 35-47-4-3?

3/4 rules not withstanding, that is illegal.

No victim=no crime....

 

[LP1]

It's a 2D image. A good photographer could make it appear to be pointed directly at when actually it is pointed up and in front of the other person.

Does anyone see deflection in the skin from the gun?

So then the gun is pointed at who-knows-what. Randomly firing up into the air is OK, right?

 

[Slawburger]

Probably seemed like a funny gag at the time. The whole "someone could die" concept just plum evaded them.

Even if they both tactilely and visually confirmed it was unloaded in this instance, it still serves as a bad example. The next person trying to emulate this gag might not be as careful in confirming it is unloaded. Just a bad idea all around.

 

[ATM]

No victim=no crime....

Very good. This is not a matter we need to abdicate to the State. This one belongs to each of us.

 

[foszoe]

So then the gun is pointed at who-knows-what. Randomly firing up into the air is OK, right?

You're first statement is correct from the picture, which means the second statement can not be a conclusion reached from the first, It is a question to which the answer is no.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

It's a 2D image. A good photographer could make it appear to be pointed directly at when actually it is pointed up and in front of the other person.

Does anyone see deflection in the skin from the gun?

I don't think you are correct. The gun is resting on his temple, but not pushed into it.

 

[foszoe]

I couldn't tell for sure from the picture here. It certainly isn't something I would do whether or not it's a photographic trick via the camera, a photoshopped gun, or even a blue gun painted black or something else. Venturing into the world of opinion. I don't like it.

I don't think you are correct. The gun is resting on his temple, but not pushed into it.

 

[JAL]

Title of this thread says it all.

 

[JAL]

It's a 2D image. A good photographer could make it appear to be pointed directly at when actually it is pointed up and in front of the other person.

Does anyone see deflection in the skin from the gun?

I've done too much photography in my past, semi-professional, and artistic, to include gallery, studio, commercial, wedding, and journalistic style location work, plus organizing juried photo shows, to accept this as being an in-camera "trick photo" or post-processing "Photoshop" fakery. In my very considered opinion, after having reverse engineered how hundreds of photos were made to critique them, the only alteration was very appropriately obscuring their faces. There are at least a half-dozen aspects of this photo that are completely consistent with it being exactly the staged and posed photo it appears to be, other than the painted out faces, and there's nothing that would indicate anything contrary to that.

John

 

[DanVoils]

the only alteration was very appropriately obscuring their faces.

I've always wondered why people obscure faces or names in photos or screen captures. Care to enlighten me since you say it was very appropriate? Thanks.

 

[JettaKnight]

The problem is with his choice of shoes, right?