More down range photographer

[Rob377]

Standing downrange from Matt Burkett (if you don't know, you betta axe somebody) is a bit different from standing dowrange from some yahoo of unknown skill and temperment at an open enrollment class.

 

[esrice]

I'll bet dollars to donuts that these nuts have had at least one "OH ****" moment while doing this or similar "drills".

If they had, and it would be bad for business (I agree), don't you think they would also stop doing it?

 

[printcraft]

If they had, and it would be bad for business (I agree), don't you think they would also stop doing it?

No. Adrenaline junkies. Bullet proof mentality.
The guy that almost falls while free climbing goes back to the cliff face too.


"WOW!! Bring me a new pair of shorts!..... I'll be more careful next time!"

 

[esrice]

Standing downrange from Matt Burkett (if you don't know, you betta axe somebody) is a bit different from standing dowrange from some yahoo of unknown skill and temperment at an open enrollment class.

So the drill is OK, but the experience of the person shooting is the deciding factor?

I actually agree with you. I wouldn't stand next to someone's target stand and snap pics if I didn't know them or their shooting skill.

But like I said before, in my class they only did it for a few students, after we'd been observed through several drills already. It wasn't as haphazard as folks want to make it out to be.

 

[esrice]

No. Adrenaline junkies. Bullet proof mentality.
The guy that almost falls while free climbing goes back to the cliff face too.


"WOW!! Bring me a new pair of shorts!..... I'll be more careful next time!"

So which is it? Are they motivated by money (more business) or adrenaline? In your made-up scenario those seem to be in conflict with each other. They either cover up their accidents to make more money or they continue to have accidents and risk the business because they feel invincible.

For an opinion based on a few internet pictures and videos that's really stretching.

 

[Rob377]

As long as all parties understood and signed the waiver, including the warning and advisement not to stand downrange, it's all good.

In all seriousness, I wouldn't call this sort of thing a best practice, particularly for open enrollment tactical fantasy camps, but I wouldn't get all "ermergawd!" over it either. Happens all the time in the military (maybe not to POGs)- at some point during a squad rush live fire exercise, you end up running around downrange of someone in your fire team and/or squad. Same thing in any kind of live fire MOUT exercise.

 

[bwframe]

...It wasn't as haphazard as folks want to make it out to be.

Part of the difficulty is the promotion of the behavior. What are Bubba and Jethro supposed to pick up from their "hero" that looks like them and says **** every other word like they do?
It's OK for them to stand next to the target taking cool pics in the back yard, right?

 

[Rob377]

Part of the difficulty is the promotion of the behavior. What are Bubba and Jethro supposed to pick up from their "hero" that looks like them and says **** every other word like they do?
It's OK for them to stand next to the target in the back yard, right?

Bubba and Jethro will do stupid things regardless, and Darwin has a job to do. Let him do it.

 

[bwframe]

...Darwin has a job to do. Let him do it.

Some might say Darwin is running a little behind...

 

[Rob377]

Some might say Darwin is running a little behind...

Because prudent, safety conscious people concerned with the general well being of others like you keep getting in his way.

 

[printcraft]

So which is it? Are they motivated by money (more business) or adrenaline? In your made-up scenario those seem to be in conflict with each other. They either cover up their accidents to make more money or they continue to have accidents and risk the business because they feel invincible.

For an opinion based on a few internet pictures and videos that's really stretching.

Made up scenario?
Well, yeah I can't prove they've had close calls.
You can't prove they haven't.

There is no conflict....... they are dipsticks.
Again, common sense is lacking, ergo good decision making is right out.

 

[lovemachine]

that guy is a asshat too.......death wish....

So...what you're saying is that anyone who has different beliefs than you do, is an asshat.

Nice. Real mature.

 

[ghitch75]

So...what you're saying is that anyone who has different beliefs than you do, is an asshat.

Nice. Real mature.

yep that sums it up.....nothing to believe getting shot for a pic......

 

[HICKMAN]

If I recall, the point of the drill really isn't to get the picture, is it?

 

[Cpt Caveman]

To me the realism of the training is not worth risking someones life. Simple as that.

 

[Shay]

If I recall, the point of the drill really isn't to get the picture, is it?

No.

 

[lovemachine]

Ok, here are my thoughts...


First, I understand the reasoning for the downrange photographer. It's to create a stressful situation, to get your heart pumping, and to prepare yourself to be able to take that shot in a public place, to eliminate a threat that's next to your beloved family member.

Now, I do believe there are OTHER methods to create a stressful moment like that. Why not park a Ferrari or a Porsche next to the target? Why not use simmunitions instead of live fire?

Murphy's Law always happens when you're not prepared. In class, I've been hit in the forehead by a ricochet from someone standing next to me, while I was getting ready to pull the trigger. Anything can happen, anything can cause you to miss the target and hit the photographer.

Yes, I agree that can happen in a real life or death situation. BUT, that's something you can't help. Nobody planned on that threat happening.

But in a class, that was planned. There is no logical reason to have someone stand next to a target. And just because TR has never had anyone injured by doing this, doesn't mean it won't happen tomorrow. That risk is unacceptable.

In a FoF class, you use simmunitions to shoot at an actual person, to create that stressful situation. They don't use live fire to shoot at each other, for obvious reasons. So again, why not use simmuntions for the downrange photographer?


I've been a machinist for 15 years. When I am on the lathe, or even using a grinder, I always use safest glasses. And I never wear a long sleeve shirt. I'm experienced, know what I'm doing. I never take a chance for something to happen to me.


Now, if you want to take that class with a downrange photographer, that's fine. It's not for me. I won't participate in it. I'm paying good money to learn to protect myself and family with my firearm. And because that **** will always happen, I will not take any risk that will involve getting myself, my family, or anyone else put in danger.

Again, these are my thoughts.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Or they could participate in FoF where they're not just shooting around people, but actually shooting AT people.

Yet, oddly enough, not with live ammo.

If I recall, the point of the drill really isn't to get the picture, is it?

If this stunt is all about realism and acclimation, why a cameraman? How many shootings are done with a stationary photo-journalist nearby?

 

[Rob377]

I've shot people with simunitions. It's fun. I usually aimed for the spot right underneath the kevlar and above the mask, because I was a Richard like that.

Not the same. Not even close.

 

[cedartop]

To me the realism of the training is not worth risking someones life. Simple as that.

That is a reasonable statement. If you were allowed an opinion.