Wellllll it was not properly done, because he did point a loaded firearm at his own hand.
Did he point a firearm at his own hand while actually demonstrating the technique? Or only while talking through the technique prior to demonstrating it?
The talk through should have been done with a blue inert with the live gun swapped in only for the demonstration.
Plus if you can't hit a paper target at less than a foot you have no business carrying a firearm.
...
Again if you have to practice shooting a target at less than a foot you have no business carrying a firearm.
Is this where you would normally jump in and point out that the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about personal ability or other limits on the exercise of the RKBA?
I didn't realize the 2nd amendment only applied to those who are born innately capable of whatever level of proficiency you think should apply.
Now, back to the reality of knowing the difference between good advice and actually imposing legal limits....
If someone isn't well versed in safely shooting at very close range I suppose he should either not attempt to shoot at those ranges, OR...wait for it...
He should get some instruction and then practice until and so he is safe and proficient.
I find the show off game nothing more than playing tactical foolishness. There is no need for a loaded firearm for this type of training. It is more a martial arts training and does not need a live gun.
I think the point of the demonstration is to show how to safely shoot an attacker at less than 1 foot without shooting yourself. Admittedly, the pre-demo talk through failed to observe proper safety and a blue inert would be appropriate there. I think there is some value in showing the live fire example.
Not saying I'm going to pay the guy for any of his training, but I'm not sure I understand why some are uptight over the video.
Charles