James Yeager is a Coward! ??? WHO CARES

[Amsdorf]

I'm still genuinely curious about this.

And I remain genuinely curious why you think it is appropriate, helpful, and not a disservice to responsible gun owners.

 

[esrice]

And I remain genuinely curious why you think it is appropriate, helpful, and not a disservice to responsible gun owners.

Like I said above, I find the danger checks unnecessary, but not dangerous. You asserted that he was acting unsafely and I'm curious why you think that.

I also said that I personally believe downrange photography to be too great a risk when considering the "reward" of shooting around people. You asserted that it was a violation of the 4-rules and I'm curious which one.

As to a general sense of Yeager's videos and their appropriateness, helpfulness, and their value to responsible gun owners, I look at it this way:

Gun owners "come to guns" for a variety of reasons. Some are hunters. Some shoot in competitions. Some have to carry them for their job. Some pick them as defensive tools. And some would simply rather shoot guns than play golf. And those are all very valid reasons to enjoy firearms.

Yeager is very firmly in the "defensive tool" camp. As such, his perspective and knowledge is filtered through that lens. And because of that, I can understand that those in the other areas of gun ownership would find him "different". But "different" doesn't automatically equate "unsafe" or "dangerous". Could it mean "more risky"? Absolutely. Fighting with guns is inherently more risky than hunting or plinking.

Are his tattoos different? His shaved head and long goatee? Affliction shirts? Sailor language? If you're comparing him to the guys shooting USPSA this weekend, sure. But does that mean that he's any less likely to defend responsible gun ownership or the 2nd Amendment?

I enjoy learning from "different" sources. In addition to Yeager videos I've also posted them from Robert Vogel, Travis Haley, and MrColionNoir. I'm always looking for pieces of the puzzle, even if they come from places that not everyone agrees on.

And if nothing else, I enjoy the discussion.

 

[printcraft]

.......Yeager is very firmly in the "defensive tool" camp. ......

I agree 100%

 

[Amsdorf]

Whatever possible "good" Yeager does is outweighed by the stoopid and just plain illegal he has done.

Challenging people to a personal duel? Illegal.
Calling out people on YouTube? Stoopid.
Not taking anyone up on their response to both? You fill in the blank. I've got documentation proving that several real-deal operators accepted his challenge and his offer to duel. He invited them to do anatomically impossible things in response.

It's not about learning from "different sources" it's being willing to stand up and call a spade a spade.

Read the comments on my YouTube video if you want to hear what people who know what they are talking about have to say about Yeager and his background. Interesting stuff.

As for "danger checks" ... I've got nothing more to say on that, beyond what ... I've already said.

 

[grogie]

Amsdorf, I liked your response. Thanks for the post.

 

[Sailor]

Read the comments on my YouTube video if you want to hear what people who know what they are talking about have to say about Yeager and his background. Interesting stuff

People here know more about this than your channel. And I am not going there to watch your video so you can profit on the ads by beating this dead horse and riding his coat tails.

 

[Amsdorf]

Amsdorf, I liked your response. Thanks for the post.

Obviously, you are a man of refined taste and excellent discerning judgment.

 

[Amsdorf]

People here know more about this than your channel. And I am not going there to watch your video so you can profit on the ads by beating this dead horse and riding his coat tails.

You don't have to watch the video...in fact don't.

Just read the comments and get some first-person/eye witness accounts of his LEO experiences.

Interesting stuff.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

You are trying to argue with the Yeager love fest. Your resistance is futile.

 

[Amsdorf]

Funny, I agree.

So, the whole situation is kind of like this, huh?

http://youtu.be/KBIdcUxdgo0

 

[Double T]

You don't have to watch the video...in fact don't.

Just read the comments and get some first-person/eye witness accounts of his LEO experiences.

Interesting stuff.

We have read the comments from couch commandos. We are quite frankly getting sick of the hate. His past is his past.

He is not a felon. He doesn't own or do anything illegal.

If you want to reiterate what has been said many times, feel free. But to simply say what you are, or imply what I think you are, is foolish.

What exactly are your credentials and service record? How many actual firefights have you been in?

Like I said, the past doesn't matter. What matters is what can be learned and brought from it to pass on. Degrading someone is of little use, and is teaching us NOTHING.

He has some very good info in his videos. If you don't like him, don't watch. Simple as that. I don't like twilight, others do. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the people in the movie.

 

[esrice]

I agree 100%

Challenging people to a personal duel? Illegal.

Is it? Challenging someone via YouTube video is illegal? I honestly don't know if it is or not, but I don't think it is. I could be wrong.

Calling out people on YouTube? Stoopid.

I agree. Not my style.

It's not about learning from "different sources" it's being willing to stand up and call a spade a spade.

I'm fine calling a spade a spade if its understood that its your opinion. But so far you've said he's done illegal things, acted unsafely, and broken the 4-rules. But you can't show me how or when?

If you just don't like the guy's style that's fine.

As for "danger checks" ... I've got nothing more to say on that, beyond what ... I've already said.

So you can't tell me how he was being unsafe with loaded guns? Or how he broke any of the 4-rules? Or how we should treat guns no matter if they're loaded or not?

I don't mind different but I won't tolerate unsafe firearms handling. Fingers on triggers, guns pointed at people-- not gonna fly. If you can show me a disregard for the 4-rules then I'll gladly stop posting his videos. Because THAT would be a disservice to gun owners.

 

[Sylvain]

We have read the comments from couch commandos. We are quite frankly getting sick of the hate. His past is his past.

He is not a felon. He doesn't own or do anything illegal.

If you want to reiterate what has been said many times, feel free. But to simply say what you are, or imply what I think you are, is foolish.

What exactly are your credentials and service record? How many actual firefights have you been in?

Like I said, the past doesn't matter. What matters is what can be learned and brought from it to pass on. Degrading someone is of little use, and is teaching us NOTHING.

He has some very good info in his videos. If you don't like him, don't watch. Simple as that. I don't like twilight, others do. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the people in the movie.

Also most Yeager's haters on here still comment on all the threads that are about him instead of ignoring them.
There is no trick, his name is always in the title.It's not like you dont know before you open the thread and find a Yeager video.

 

[esrice]

You are trying to argue with the Yeager love fest. Your resistance is futile.

Insulting others that don't agree with you is a tactic used by folks when they can no longer provide a reasonable argument. Is that the point we're at?

If you have a reasonable argument to add, please do.

 

[Amsdorf]

"But you can't show me how or when?"

I have....in *his* class he did this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=np9j77NHxlk

I don't know what else I can "show" you to prove he is dangerous and irresponsible.

If you do not think putting a photographer in front of people shooting live fire exercises is not "breaking the four rules" honestly I have no idea what I could show you.

 

[Sylvain]

"But you can't show me how or when?"

I have....in *his* class he did this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=np9j77NHxlk

I don't know what else I can "show" you to prove he is dangerous and irresponsible.

If you do not think putting a photographer in front of people shooting live fire exercises is not "breaking the four rules" honestly I have no idea what I could show you.

The gun is not pointed at the photographer and he's not in front of behind the target.
It would be unsafe if they were using grenades but not unsafe with guns.

 

[Amsdorf]

So, it's safe to put a photographer down range while people are blazing away with firearms? I'll try that out at my next gun club outing, care to be the guy with the camera standing next to the targets I'm shooting at?

 

[esrice]

If you do not think putting a photographer in front of people shooting live fire exercises is not "breaking the four rules" honestly I have no idea what I could show you.

Thanks for the video. Let's put it to the 4-rules test to see which one was violated.

Rule #1 - Treat all guns as if they are loaded.

In this case the guns used were most certainly loaded, and they were being treated that way.

Rule #2 - Do not point guns at anything you aren't willing to destroy.

This is the most likely rule to be broken, but I can't tell from the video if it was or not. Drawing while laying flat on your back can make muzzle control more difficult. Now obviously we know that guns aren't pointed at the photographer during active firing due to the fact that he wasn't hit. But that doesn't mean that he didn't have them pointed at him at some point during the exercise. I just can't tell from the angle and distance of the video.

Rule #3 - Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.

Obviously I can't see every shooter's finger, but given that its taught as part of the curriculum, and that no rounds appeared to have been fired accidentally or negligently, I'm gonna assume the shooters had their fingers off the triggers until they were ready to shoot. If you can see otherwise let me know.

Rule #4 - Know your target and what's around it.

I think its safe to assume that the shooters were aware of the photographer's presence, as he was within their vision. In fact I'm gonna guess it was made known prior to the exercise. And I'm willing to bet that those shooters have never been MORE AWARE of what's around their target than when they were engaging it with a live person squatting nearby.


So putting it to the 4-rules test I can't easily see if any were broken. If one was broken I think it was most likely #2, but I can't tell definitively from the video.

And as I've said many times before, I'm not a fan of this practice and feel that the risk of an accident is too great for the "reward" of stress inoculation. I think there are other ways to simulate such stress without involving a live human being-- especially in the more beginning stages of firearms training.

But that doesn't mean that I'm not able to break it down and clearly see that, while I might not personally be comfortable with it, it can be done without violating any of the standard 4-rules of firearms safety.

If you're not comfortable with it that is fine, just say so. But to hide behind it being a "4-rules violation" is disingenuous.

 

[schhrdkncks]

Just watched a few of your videos and if you are an expert then I believe you live in a false reality. The way you fumbled that reload on that glock video where you were shooting the 9mm handguns I think you could benefit from Yeagers fighting pistol class. When you were firing that full auto scar with two of your fingers on the barrel until you jerked them off when it got hot. You put your finger on the trigger on that fns2000 several times when you were talking about it before you were ready to send rounds down range. You might want to edit your videos a little better when you are questioning someone elses credibility.

 

[Amsdorf]

Esrice, weren't you just cautioning people from making personal attacks rather than substantial arguments? I think you just blew it in the last couple words of your post.

Seems you are straining mightily to defend the indefensible, a man was standing next to a target during a live fire exercise.

Yeager lamely tried to defend it by saying, "Hey, firearms are dangerous as are many things."

And now rather than responding to the point I'm making you are accusing me of being disingenuous. I can see this conversation is over, and your "curiosity" has been, all along, as I suspected, simply a blind eye being turned to Yeager and his unsafe practices and irresponsible behaviors.

Seems you have run out of steam trying to defend Yeager.

But, of course, you may have the last word. And we'll just have to...agree to disagree on this one.