General GunTuber thread

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
I don’t understand the emotional investment people have in the e-celebs they follow. I find the parasocial relationships people form disturbing. If you’re watching for the person and not the subject matter that is inherently a problem. Maybe you like someone’s presentation style better, fine that makes sense. But don’t get attached to the presenter themselves.

The patreon model perhaps contributes to this in that people feel they are supporting a person rather than supporting their work or paying for a service.

I support Flashgitz on patreon. Their videos are funny as fuck. I don’t really give a shit about the artists themselves or their personal lives. I’ve supported the 3 Gun Show before because I like the information. I don’t care about Dave Hartman’s personal life. In fact when these people talk about their personal lives at all I find it off putting.
 
Here's the armorer that thought having live rounds on a movie set was a cool idea.
1635015028152.png

1635016955563.jpg
 
I never was “attached” to Karl as a person. Me being upset at him being a jerk was because I wasted time listening to what he has to say for a long time. I didn’t necessarily feel “betrayed” because I never supported him due to InRange being purposely demonetized by Karl.

I stopped getting attached to internet people a long time ago with James Rolfe.
 
I don’t understand the emotional investment people have in the e-celebs they follow. I find the parasocial relationships people form disturbing. If you’re watching for the person and not the subject matter that is inherently a problem. Maybe you like someone’s presentation style better, fine that makes sense. But don’t get attached to the presenter themselves.

The patreon model perhaps contributes to this in that people feel they are supporting a person rather than supporting their work or paying for a service.
It's a tale as old as prostitution - some people pay for the sense of companionship rather than the intended service.
 
I don’t understand the emotional investment people have in the e-celebs they follow. I find the parasocial relationships people form disturbing. If you’re watching for the person and not the subject matter that is inherently a problem.
I actually struggle to imagine that. There's people watching people online not for the stuff they do, but entirely for them as a person? I can see taking a liking to someone's personality, but they're not a friend, they're a performer, a showman.

Here's the armorer that thought having live rounds on a movie set was a cool idea.
LMAO, that's what fucking happened? You'd think the studios would be paranoid as fuck about that after Brandon Lee.
Yech. Guess the guy didn't actually raise his daughter much.

I would love to see a feud between crypto-ancoms like Karl and corpo neolibs like Moviebob.
Next on InRange: Harpoon Guns
 
I don’t understand the emotional investment people have in the e-celebs they follow. I find the parasocial relationships people form disturbing. If you’re watching for the person and not the subject matter that is inherently a problem. Maybe you like someone’s presentation style better, fine that makes sense. But don’t get attached to the presenter themselves.
I actually struggle to imagine that. There's people watching people online not for the stuff they do, but entirely for them as a person? I can see taking a liking to someone's personality, but they're not a friend, they're a performer, a showman.
I think a lot people see themselves (or who'd they like to be) in YouTube stars, because they're far more accessible & personable than normal media personalities, and they live vicariously through their favorite (or most hated) creators' successes (or failures); all of it pushed & streamed in their daily feeds. Many of them lived the same types of lives prior to finding YouTube success, so there's another connection. Not everyone can see themselves mirrored in the movies or TV, but chances are pretty good they can find someone who does on YouTube now.

It's something that's always existed for entertainers, but there's just not the same layers of separation that used to exist between entertainment & real-life.
The patreon model perhaps contributes to this in that people feel they are supporting a person rather than supporting their work or paying for a service.
Very much so; the furry/cosplay/art-commission communities are the example of how skewed people get when they're really invested, publicly and privately.
I support Flashgitz on patreon. Their videos are funny as fuck. I don’t really give a shit about the artists themselves or their personal lives. I’ve supported the 3 Gun Show before because I like the information.
Good leads. I'm surprised the almighty algorithms haven't already made those suggestions, it's definitely been slacking lately.
You'd think the studios would be paranoid as fuck about that after Brandon Lee.

Guess the guy didn't actually raise his daughter much.
She was an unqualified scab, simple as. Baldwin literally got what they paid for; someone who had magically picked up all their skills by osmosis, which seems to be a big trend in her demographic & industry.
 
Last edited:
ffs this entire Baldwin thing. and now some guntuber personalities are commenting on it with some less informed than others. at least this production house supposedly has sworn off using unmodified weapons in film.

i work off and on as a manufacturer and sometimes lender of firearms for theatrical performances ranging from photographs to feature films and even a few video games. i'm not as big as Bapty's or MAGC or Specialist's, but you've likely seen stuff i've made or supplied.

normally, non firing props are used as much as possible, rubber molds, plastic kitbashed stuff on dummy barreled deactivated receivers, even toys. for some sequences that involve firing there are many practical and special effects options. for revolvers and some other weapons, the visibility of the ammunition creates a bit of an issue. after the 90's it became popular briefly to use special effects with some practical effects (flash paper, pyrotechnic blanks) because the technology had become cheap enough to be affordable to smaller budgets. for revolvers, because blanks would be fairly obvious, there are some unique handling done:

1. do a swap between props, blank fire, and live fire, with the live fire being done filmed in a unique way (editing, camera angle) so there's minimized danger.
2. post production editing of the recorded film to obfuscate the blanks or add effects for flashpaper or non firing props.
3. use blanks with a dummy bullet made of paper or plaster (usually colored) and film off angle.

often a combination of the above is used. in no circumstances is live ammunition to be used, even in sequences being filmed where nothing is loaded (say on a table or something). usually these are deprimed/powderless dummy cartridges filled with sand and a lead plug at the base. very real looking, but completely inert.

on the set, an armorer is in charge of all the weapons and ammo being used and is uniquely responsible for their provisioning and disposition. armorers have assistants as well to do grip work, but generally it's a one-man operation with a separate person doing safety and supervision and hire-outs or sub-contractors doing prop building, furnishing of the base weapon (me), or training. there's usually 3-4 "gun people", regardless of politics, that should have the training and experience of how to do this stuff safely and effectively.

for this incident i can't comment on specifically on what might have happened, but the description sounds like what some super cheap production houses do: buy normal weapons and film with live ammo until ready to shoot with real people involved, where blanks are swapped in. this is incredibly dangerous and is extremely discouraged in the trade.

what a complete shitshow.
 
Last edited:
ffs this entire baldwin thing. and now some guntuber personalities are commenting on it with some less informed than others. at least this production house supposedly has sworn off using unmodified weapons in film.

i work off and on as a manufacturer and sometimes lender of firearms for theatrical performances ranging from photographs to feature films and even a few video games. i'm not as big as Bapty's or MAGC or Specialist's, but you've likely seen stuff i've made or supplied.

normally, non firing props are used as much as possible, rubber molds, plastic kitbashed stuff on dummy barreled deactivated receivers, even toys. for some sequences that involve firing there are many practical and special effects options. for revolvers and some other weapons, the visibility of the ammunition creates a bit of an issue. after the 90's it became popular briefly to use special effects with some practical effects (flash paper, pyrotechnic blanks) because the technology had become cheap enough to be affordable to smaller budgets. for revolvers, because blanks would be fairly obvious, there are some unique handling done:

1. do a swap between props, blank fire, and live fire, with the live fire being done filmed in a unique way (editing, camera angle) so there's minimized danger.
2. post production editing of the recorded film to obfuscate the blanks or add effects for flashpaper or non firing props.
3. use blanks with a dummy bullet made of paper or plaster (usually colored) and film off angle.

often a combination of the above is used. in no circumstances is live ammunition to be used, even in sequences being filmed where nothing is loaded (say on a table or something). usually these are deprimed/powderless dummy cartridges filled with sand and a lead plug at the base. very real looking, but completely inert.

on the set, an armorer is in charge of all the weapons and ammo being used and is uniquely responsible for their provisioning and disposition. armorers have assistants as well to do grip work, but generally it's a one-man operation with a separate person doing safety and supervision and hire-outs or sub-contractors doing prop building, furnishing of the base weapon (me), or training. there's usually 3-4 "gun people", regardless of politics, that should have the training and experience of how to do this stuff safely and effectively.

for this incident i can't comment on specifically on what might have happened, but the description sounds like what some super cheap production houses do: buy normal weapons and film with live ammo until ready to shoot with real people involved, where blanks are swapped in. this is incredibly dangerous and is extremely discouraged in the trade.

what a complete shitshow.
No matter how bad production fucked up, Alec Baldwin is a drooling, mouthbreathing, crosseyed mongoloid for pointing a gun he had no idea what was inside of at a person and pulling the trigger. He is completely culpable for negligent homicide because he didn't follow a single rule of standard gun safety.
 
Back
Top Bottom