show me some .50 cal sniper footage please

[ShortFormMike]

I don't get it, you would get sick from watching someone shoot a gopher, but you are asking to view a snuff flick of a human being, and you are cool with that?

when i was in high school my friend and i watched this movie called "traces of death". the one time we both agreed to hit fast forward was when this pig was roasted alive. i didn't find much else really disturbing (just disgusting) besides that and when that bud dwyer guy shot himself in the mouth. we both ran out of the room traumatized after that one.

but yea, i can't explain why. it certainly isn't rational. but something just perturbs me about seeing animals out in the wilderness get killed. i guess it's better to get shot by a gun or even an arrow instead of getting sick and ripped apart by a predator. but like i said it isn't rational why that bothers me more than seeing "enemy" soldiers getting cut down.

and that brings up another point. i had seen many 'insurgent' bodies and it never bothered me but when i saw some american soldiers just piled in a heap in some iraqi shit hole i was suprised how much more shocking it was. so what's the difference really?

[Andy_S]

Last weekend I interviewed an Aussie sniper who had been in Korea. He could see his kills though the scope, but there were no flying bodies or "red mist": He said he'd just see the target jerk and slump (his targets were other snipers). He recovered a couple of Russian-made sniper rifles from his victims.

Those who are hit, usually it is like being hit with something very, very hard:
"Like a house ran into me" (Aussie infantryman, shot with a 5-round burst thorugh thigh at Pakchon)
"Like being hit with a sledgehammer with a knife on the end of it" (British infantryman and later SAS trooper, shot through shoulder and ribs at Imjin)
"Like an electric shock" (Scottish infantry officer, shot through hand with submachinegun at Pusan Perimeter)
"It felt like someone had kicked me in the arse, but there was no pain" (British infantryman, shot in backside at "Happy Valley")

As for people being shot on video:
The footage exists. We are at war. If we are discussing RBSD (as we sometimes do) I don't have a philosophical problem with it being posted on the RSF any more than I do lower-level forms of violence: MMA fights, street fights, etc. Those who do not like it, don't click on it. When I was in army training, I saw the medical training film "Vietnam Medic," (NOT for the squeamish) but the most disturbing thing I have ever seen on video was posted on this site and I am glad I saw it: It was educational, in a shocking kind of way. (Thanks' Strawdog, for that gruesome footage of the machete attack victim in the casualty room.)

You may call if snuff. I'd may call it germane to the discussion of violence - this is an MA site, let us not forget.

[Muad'dib]

Andy, I have no problem talking about it, but it's distasteful to say the least to post videos of someone dying simply for curiousity's sake. That is hardly germane to MA.

[Dmitri]

Andy, I have no problem talking about it, but it's distasteful to say the least to post videos of someone dying simply for curiousity's sake. That is hardly germane to MA.

+1

Mike if you really need that sort of thing, you should ask for it in PM... RSF is not the place, IMO.

[Chris Fleming]

It's like asking for someone else to post clips of a person getting their head cut off, because they want to know if the blood really does spurt up like the movies.

Considering how the internet is quite there for you violence seekers if that's your thing, I find it strange that someone would come on here requesting clips of that nature.

[meeks]

I think he brings up a valid point - if you don't want to view it don't click on it. The title of the thread is clear and self explanatory. We often post links (instead of embedding in the page) and say "click at your own risk". A 'snuff film' is more about someone being kidnapped and shot for the purpose of entertainment on video. Footage of a guy in Iraq or footage of a guy on the shooting range is not a snuff film, which in turn sheds a different 'gut feeling' on the viewer.
we've posted videos of chinese soldiers taking sniper shots at tibetan guys crossing the mountains - how's this any different?

[Chris Fleming]

"how's this any different?"

Pointless violence. Comparing the atrocities of people being shot at in Tibet and discussing what is happening in that world situation to requesting clips of people getting killed so we can see if they fly or not doesn't make sense.

[ShortFormMike]

"how's this any different?"

Pointless violence. Comparing the atrocities of people being shot at in Tibet and discussing what is happening in that world situation to requesting clips of people getting killed so we can see if they fly or not doesn't make sense.

yea the chinese invading tibet when they had no business doing so and sniping them is very different from americans invading iraq or afghanistan. and, yes, they may be "insurgents" which is really just someone defending their own backyard (like we'd do any different if either those guys invades us).
_____________________

it's off topic. why even bother posting if you don't like it? do you really think if someone obliged me that this section would end up becoming some kind of goregallery.com?

i've wanted to post this for a while but i've always said fuck it. but there's a subtle energy of control exerted at certain times on this board and i don't think i'm the only one that notices it. that's all i'm going to say about it.

[Steve James]

Fwiw, a "snuff" film is best described as a film of someone being killed, violently and usually against their will, for the enjoyment of the watcher. The viewer is comfortably safe from any danger of what's happening on the film from happening to him or her.

Of course, there are also criminals who've recorded their rape-torture-murders. I suppose there are good reasons for certain people to watch these films. For those in the military, it is necessary for training, since they will be there in harm's way. For police, it is necessary as evidence as a possible way to catch the perpetrators. Personally, I just don't have the desire.

[Chris Fleming]

"why even bother posting if you don't like it?"

Because I'm curious as to why you, with the full internet at your disposal, would come here asking if someone can "show [you] some .50 cal sniper footage please". Is there a reason as to why you thought people here would have this sort of thing? Why no just search for it yourself?

"this section would end up becoming some kind of goregallery.com"

Is that a real website? If it is, how is it that you know about it? Speaks volumes IMO.

"there's a subtle energy of control exerted at certain times on this board and i don't think i'm the only one that notices it"

True but do we really need to go there regarding this topic?

[Andy_S]

Humans have a long and dishonourable history of watching violence for interest or entertainment: From the Roman games and the UFC to video games, thrillers and war movies.

However this is the way we are wired.

If we are to ban, say, a clip from Iraq that shows insurgents being sniped, then we should also ban clips from MA matches, street fights and yes, even gongfu movies. It is ALL the same thing, pandering to the same instinct: the only difference is the degree of violence, and the level of reality, that is being portrayed.

I, for one, would argue for MORE, not less clips of real violence on RSF.* It is better for the we, the public, to see the real thing rather than stylized versions of violence, if we are to understand its unpleasant reality.

*BTW, I am a kind and gentle fellow who practices Taiji in silk PJs, not a violent thug who does HsingI in black trous and a wife beater. I add this point merely for context.

[ashe]

I think he brings up a valid point - if you don't want to view it don't click on it. The title of the thread is clear and self explanatory. We often post links (instead of embedding in the page) and say "click at your own risk". A 'snuff film' is more about someone being kidnapped and shot for the purpose of entertainment on video. Footage of a guy in Iraq or footage of a guy on the shooting range is not a snuff film, which in turn sheds a different 'gut feeling' on the viewer.
we've posted videos of chinese soldiers taking sniper shots at tibetan guys crossing the mountains - how's this any different?

there is a line. it may not be very clear at times, but there is a line.

[Taijikid]

If you want some real stuff, watch this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/

There is enough warning before you click the play button.

[ShortFormMike]

If you want some real stuff, watch this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/

There is enough warning before you click the play button.

frontline is one of the greatest shows on tv ever. i love being able to watch it online and it's archives. i can't praise it enough.

[Ian]

I, for one, would argue for MORE, not less clips of real violence on RSF.* It is better for the we, the public, to see the real thing rather than stylized versions of violence, if we are to understand its unpleasant reality.

I agree.

Especially since we are at war, and there are people in our society who have been to Iraq and Afghanistan, are currently there, or are going to be there in the near future. Furthermore, there are people who support the war, and citizens are being taxed for this very purpose. I think it makes sense for people to see how their votes and tax dollars are being used.

War footage is not snuff. It only becomes snuff if it gets you off.

Besides, if you've been on the internet for a period of time, chances are you've seen some messed up shit. Much worse than someone getting shot. The video of the Russian soldier getting his head sawn off with a bowie knife in Chechnya, for example. Sordid, but 'we' are 'there' and unfortunately that's what happens.

I'd rather know what happens in real life than live in the dark.