More down range photographer

[irishfan]

I have to ask how many times will this be debated here? You have your people who see it as dumb and your people who see it as acceptable and nobody is going to change sides. Yes, you have a few here that push companies and views really hard while others love to bash some of the same companies for various reasons. There are a lot of better options then actually having a human stand down range of a shooter even if it is only a short distance shot. However, if the man feels it is what he wants to do then that is his choice. If you don't like it then don't spend your money at the school that does it. This thread and others like it accomplish the same thing as the James Yeager videos that so many love to hate. I personally like them and agree with a lot of James Yeager's views but I won't be standing next to a target anytime soon even if a few people would love it if I would

 

[CPT Nervous]

Show me an example of a downrange photographer who has been shot.

 

[printcraft]

Show me an example of a downrange photographer who has been shot.

 

[Shay]

Ok, here are my thoughts...

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?

My company shoots a lot of people using man-marking rounds. I'm telling you it's not the same.

Name calling on this (or any) issue is uncalled for. The people involved are all adults and are doing this by choice. You might not understand their motivations, but to say someone is stupid or an idiot for participating doesn't add anything of value. Nobody is telling you you have to do anything. And yet some of you are making this personal.

 

[CPT Nervous]

My company shoots a lot of people using man-marking rounds. I'm telling you it's not the same.

Name calling on this (or any) issue is uncalled for. The people involved are all adults and are doing this by choice. You might not understand their motivations, but to say someone is stupid or an idiot for participating doesn't add anything of value. Nobody is telling you you have to do anything. And yet some of you are making this personal.

Some people will make everything personal. Don't take it personally...

They're just too immature to accept anything outside their preconceived notions of what's acceptable and safe. I see no danger in this practice, but many, as you see, will project their own irrational fears onto the rest of us. They don't trust themselves to not shoot a guy who is out of the line of fire, and too close for variances in bullet trajectory to make a difference. The think that they would shoot him, so they say it's dangerous and that they would never be on a range where this was done, and make up ridiculous scenarios, all the while NOT ONCE did ANYONE point out a SINGLE instance where one of these photographers has been shot. NOT ONCE.

 

[lovemachine]

My company shoots a lot of people using man-marking rounds. I'm telling you it's not the same.

Name calling on this (or any) issue is uncalled for. The people involved are all adults and are doing this by choice. You might not understand their motivations, but to say someone is stupid or an idiot for participating doesn't add anything of value. Nobody is telling you you have to do anything. And yet some of you are making this personal.

No, it's not the same.

But, again, I'm paying good money to learn how to better protect myself with a firearm. With that type of attitude, "it's not the same", why not shoot at real live humans instead of cardboard targets.

I mean, how can I tell how many rounds its going to take to eliminate the target with a measly piece of cardboard?

It's just not the same...

 

[lovemachine]

Shay, it's nothing personal against you, TR, or Yeager.

I have said lots of times I agree with Yeager, would even train with him if I had the funds. And, I've said the same about you.

This downrange thing, it's not for me. I think there are other ways I'd rather do it.

 

[lovemachine]

Another thought on Murphy's Law. Even James Yeager follows it...

We carry a gun because bad things happen.
We carry a spare mag because bad things happen.
Some people even carry a BUG, because bad things happen.
Other people even carry a second BUG, because bad things can happen.

Why take the chance?

Just because nobody has never gotten hurt standing down range, doesn't mean it won't happen tomorrow.

Nothing bad has ever happened to me to cause me to carry a gun. But I carry a gun because something bad could happen tomorrow.

 

[bwframe]

Maybe all the promoters of this argued "safe practice" of having a downrange photographer should make their own videos?
Quit riding on Mr. Yeager's coat tails and put your money where your mouth is. Lets see some video.

 

[CPT Nervous]

Maybe all the promoters of this argued "safe practice" of having a downrange photographer should make their own videos?
Quit riding on Mr. Yeager's coat tails and put your money where your mouth is. Lets see some video.

Done. Next time I go to an outdoor range I will complete this task for you.

 

[bwframe]

Done. Next time I go to an outdoor range I will complete this task for you.

Let's be absolutely clear here. You will not be doing this for me. My opinion of such behavior is very, very clearly stated on INGO, in this thread and many others.
If you choose to do this, it is totally on you. You backing up your words that this practice is safe with video. Preferably from both ends of the muzzle.

 

[CPT Nervous]

Let's be absolutely clear here. You will not be doing this for me. My opinion of such behavior is very, very clearly stated on INGO, in this thread and many others.
If you choose to do this, it is totally on you. You backing up your words that this practice is safe with video. Preferably from both ends of the muzzle.

I already know it's not dangerous. I'm not proving anything to myself. I'll do it, and I have no issue with doing so. I can do it from both sides, too. Doesn't matter to me. It's no more dangerous than brushing my teeth.

 

[Fenway]

I drive alot around 465 and the Indy area. I'm amazed at the amount of drivers on the road who are paying more attention to their phones than driving their 3000lbs vehicle. Some of the things I see are insane. I've started thinking about how my odds of an accident have greatly increased over the years because drivers are so distracted these days.

I think driving around 465 would be more dangerous than an INGOer fully engaged and placing shots on target with someone standing next to it. I'm not condoning this or giving my opinion on having someone down range. I'm talking about levels of danger. Just my

 

[bwframe]

...I can do it from both sides, too...

Video from both sides please, to demonstrate to all that this is so "tooth brushing" safe.

 

[esrice]

You have your people who see it as dumb and your people who see it as acceptable and nobody is going to change sides.

I dunno about that-- I did.

I used to be firmly in the same camp as lovemachine. I even talked about using expensive cars instead of a person, etc.

When I got the opportunity to take their Fighting Pistol course I had to ask myself if I would be willing to participate in the drill. I thought about it back and forth. I spoke with alumni about their experiences. I talked with Jay Gibson, the man in the video himself who started this whole debate several years ago, and got his take on it. Then I saw the range, the firing line, and the drill. At that point I knew I was fine with participating and accepted the risk involved (just as I did when moving around a bunch of guys shooting guns). After my picture was taken I realized that while I did learn something from the experience, it wasn't as risky as the internet would have me believe.

With that type of attitude, "it's not the same", why not shoot at real live humans instead of cardboard targets.

Because with live ammo that would ensure grave bodily harm, which is illegal, unethical, and immoral. And it clearly violates the 4 Rules.

Maybe all the promoters of this argued "safe practice" of having a downrange photographer should make their own videos?

This is minor, but I do want to point out that I don't believe anyone is promoting this as a "safe practice" in the sense that it's totally 100% safe. Nothing is. There is inherent risk in shooting firearms, and that risk is greatly amplified by simply showing up to a training course where you're trusting a group of strangers to not point guns at you. But we show up because we believe that the risk is worth the knowledge and experienced gained. It's the same with this drill, but folks just don't agree on if its worth it or not.

ETA: Ok it looks like CPT Nervous thinks its as safe as brushing his teeth. I disagree, but there you go, lol. Perhaps his routine is more rigorous than mine.

 

[CPT Nervous]

ETA: Ok it looks like CPT Nervous thinks its as safe as brushing his teeth. I disagree, but there you go, lol. Perhaps his routine is more rigorous than mine.

You 'mirin?


I brush my teeth LIKE A BOSS.

 

[CPT Nervous]

Video from both sides please, to demonstrate to all that this is so "tooth brushing" safe.

Will do. May be a couple weeks, but I will bump this thread when I do, or, if it's too dead, or locked, I'll start a new one.

 

[lovemachine]

Because with live ammo that would ensure grave bodily harm, which is illegal, unethical, and immoral. And it clearly violates the 4 Rules.

I know. I was using that statement as an example.



Lets talk about necessary and unnecessary risks.

Necessary risk.
Driving on I465.
Brushing your teeth.
A firefighter running into a burning building.
Operating a chainsaw while standing on a ladder.
Getting married.

Unnecessary risks.
Standing next to a target down range.
Getting married.
Not using safety glasses.

 

[gunsisgood]

I think Beavis and Butthead need to get a new hobby/occupation or at least a tripod.

 

[Josh Ward]

Ok, lets add a little twist to this debate.....

Team tactic drills..... would you or would you not; have you have you not shot around "a friendly" when fighting forward, falling back, moving forward/back from cover to cover ect ect ect