Cameras have tripods, remotes, and timers. There is no need to put people at increased risk. If you want to destroy a few hundred dollar camera setup, it is fine by me. People shot not be placed in locations where they may be “accidentally” shot.

I bet his insurance company would not like to see that video. If the cameraman was killed, i wonder how his wife and kids would feel?

The response video is full of lame excuses. He has dropped into my “no go” list of firearms instructors.

“Mindset of the Warrior” my foot. This guy has shown his true colors and shouldn’t be trusted to train me, you, or anyone about how to respond tactically in a firefight. If anything, he’s a perfect example of a man who thinks his Magpul accessories and ACU patterned doohickeys make him a tactical genius.

Do you want this man shooting near you at a range so you can take pictures of him?

They do so based on the knowledge and experience with in the context of sky diving and it’s through experience that they are able to pass on what one would consider best practice to their students in any give situation even if at times they break their own rules.

It is a given that with in the sport there is a need to have rules that ensures the safety of all involved for no reason other than to have a standard and a level of expatiation of all of those involved. The one-eighty rule is simply there as a means of controlling the direction of the muzzle with out having to trust the individual holding the firearm and trusting in their ability to handle the weapon in a safe manner regardless of the situation.

With in that context I can see how the rules needs to be applied in any given situation yet the need to properly train someone in the use of a sidearm, and it’s proper handling in a safe manner, at times requires the need to do so that is not consider by many as best practice.

A police office for example should only pull their sidearm if they have the intention to use it and such use is generally not under the safety rules as governed by the controlled environment such as an organized firing range.

This changes the rules that differs from a paper target and handling the weapon in an efficient and safe manner to focus of what is occurring down range that requires the unobstructed decision making of when to use deadly force.

Granted range safety rules should be followed at all times but an office of the law needs to learn how to handle their sidearm and that needs to included the ability to do a full 360 degree turn safely and effortlessly and look upon their weapon as an extension of law enforcement rather than applying rules that are best suited as part of the sport aspect.

What is safe and safety on the other hand is not inherent from the rules but based on the individual and their confidence to make the right decisions when there are no rules that apply to a given situation.

Sooooo

I’m not all that concerned that someone was standing in front of the firing line as I wonder about the qualifications of the shooter. Overall not the smartest thing to do but I don’t see it being any less dangerous than jumping out of a perfectly good aircraft.

I would have though it would make for a short course.

Lesson 1- RUN! when under fire run away as fast as you can

Congratulations, you all passed!

He says he has never had an accident in 10 years of training…I would like to add “yet” to that statement as with everything in life, Murphys law finds a way of stamping its authority eventually, and James will end up getting someone else killed.

For those who don’t know James Yaegers pedigree, check out how he responds to being shot at…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-fjrRB7WPQ

He is the guy who can be seen at 23 seconds running from the car on the right and hiding at the berm on the left, instead of returning fire or getting his wounded boys off the X…makes you want to sign up for one of his courses huh?

“For any other group, including civilians — absolutely and unequivocally — no way, no how, and at no time should that be taking place.”

Playing Devil’s advocate here, I assume you are grouping the aforementioned exhibition shooters in with this statement. If that is the case, I think one could argue, that these exhibition shooters are as prolific or even more prolific with firearms than Special Operations Groups.

Let’s say, for the sake of an argument, that these civilian exhibition shooters are “as good” as SOG operators. Going by the rules of your statement they would have never been allowed to develop their shows to full potential due to the fact that they are civilians. Should tightrope walkers be arrested for working without a net. Think of all the amazing things we have accomplished as humans because someone took a risk that was unsafe.

Not everyone has what it takes to be an operator, but should they deny their God given talent to use a firearm just because they don’t want to enlist or flunk selection/buds or the q-course. Not everyone wants to live through SERE, but that’s no reason to deny that they are master with a firearm. Also, should civilians not be allowed to become as masterful with firearms as SOG’s? From what I understand everyone in the USA is charged with the safety of her sovereignty. Everyone who is able is expected to take up arms and defend her from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Should those that would defend her not become as skillful as those that make living of it? My point here being…sometime ago, somewhere, someone took that first shot near friendlies in training to evolve their skill level. Why should we deny that level of training in our civilian counter parts?

We all have the ability to reason and take calculated risks and those calculations will vary from person to person and from situation to situation. Thanks for listening and debating this topic with logic and reason.

For any other group, including civilians — absolutely and unequivocally — no way, no how, and at no time should that be taking place.

1. Every week in Army basic a new group of recruits crawls through a fied of simulated artillery fire (which yes could hurt you if you went into one of the depressions and that has happened by recruits that freak out) while Drill Sergeants fire LIVE TRACER round over the heads of hundreds of low crawling recruits?

2. Exhibition shooters like Bryon Ferguson shoot items our of the hand of his wife. Yes he uses a bow but are you any less dead with an arrow in your chest?

3. Military units conduct live fire exercises with observers and they certainly break the 90% plane in all of them by as much or more as this training exercise did?

As to whether this was “unsafe” or not is up to the individual. Some people think skydiving is “unsafe”, but people still do it anyway…and they DON’T have to do it. It is completely voluntary just like the cameraman’s willingness to take the photo. I’ve seen Bob Munden shoot aspirin out of the air with a revolver, I’ve seen an old couple, (The Fabulous Topperwiens), shoot cigarettes out of each others mouths. Witnessing that level of proficiency with a firearm, I would have no problem letting them lob rounds at or around me, as long as they weren’t intent on killing me that is . Army Delta, as well as other Special Forces groups, practice shooting in a kill house with live ammo and there sure as hell ain’t no 180 degree line. Should they not practice these types of drills with live ammo? The point of the training is to be in total control of a live weapon with others around you, even down range of you. I would assume that the cameraman was comfortable with the shooting proficiency and safety of the shooters on the range that day, otherwise he would not have taken the photo.

In summation, if you personally think it would be unsafe to stand down range of a shooter, regardless of their skill, then by all means don’t do it.

But by your own admissions, you said that your students simply said they were more serious and more concentrated. Although the two of them do have a correlation, this is not causation. Your logic is somewhat flawed in that aspect.

And because it is dangerous, does it mean we should not taken the necessary precautions? My hair grows. Its inevitable. As you say, its a scientific fact. Does this mean I should not cut my hair? As the days heat up and I sweat, I start to get dirty and grimy and I have BO. This is also inevitable. Does this mean I shouldnt shower since I will get dirty again?

In addition to that, this guy has no common sense. Most ranges have a 180 rule for safety reasons, which is common sense and needed when on a range.

I would never recommend this guy to anyone.

Nice ammunition for the anti’s.

I’m sure there would be some OH&S issues for that workplace?

He also says that, if you are squeamish about firing towards a target if someone is even slightly in front of your muzzle, you won’t be able to fire at a bad guy to save your life. Anyone else think this is a ridiculous statement?

James

I get that creepy feeling like I get from ‘newbie specialists’ at the range.

Remind me to stay away from that idiot.

A remote camera release runs from $19 – $150 depending what you want.

A photographer down range is not smart. PERIOD!

Safety is an illusion, but that’s no reason to be unsafe, right? But what is the most safe form of training one could do? Realistic, non-firing guns which recoil when you pull the trigger. “But that’s ridiculous”, you say. “An airsoft gun is no substitute for the real thing!” Okay. I submit to you that the safest way to train with a real firearm is to remove the firing pin an not use live ammunition. “But that’s absurd”, you say. “You need to be able to master recoil control! There’s nothing that will prepare you for the feeling of firing a gun other than actually firing it!” You wouldn’t handle a loaded firearm to a neophyte who didn’t know anything about guns and expect them to be safe. You train to become increasingly proficient, and as your skill improves, your training advances and exposes you to increasing levels of risk until you can safely handle a firearm under the stress of actual combat.

And that’s the point. If you go to this school, you are not learning how to fire a weapon for the first time. You are not learning how to fire quickly and accurately, you are learning to fire it quickly and accurately under stress caused by personal peril. They are attempting to simulate the stress of the actual event, which I think is not something for the faint of heart, but not something I would call stupid. Would I stand down range of someone I do not know who was firing a weapon? I don’t know, because I have. Only they were TRYING to hit me. It was not fun, and I did not react the way I imagined I would, but I did better than he did. I don’t want to relive that experience, but I would like to react a bit differently if it were to happen again. That’s something that will require training, and serious training often involves serious risk and the potential for personal injury or death.

Anti-gunners feel that the mere presence of a firearm in the home is a risk too great to justify any reward, and we all disagree. It is a choice we made when we chose to own a firearm. We considered the possible risks and benefits of our decision before we purchased, and we decided that the benefits outweighed the hazards. Attendance to Tactical Response is voluntary, and I’m sure most of the attendees are aware of the risks and attend anyway. That does not make them stupid, it just make them a bit more reckless than most of us.

I work for a safety supply house. The products we sell are designed to prevent and mitigate against personal injury. Don’t his students wear safety glasses and ear protection? Sure, that pair of safety glasses could fail, but there is an expectation that they won’t. We play the odds Mr Yeager.

The photographer chose to put himself in that position. Those students chose to listen to the instructor and accepted the potential consequence of a misplaced shot.

The car analogy is silly. I drive with the expectation that everyone else is going to be the one to cause the accident. I drive in condition yellow, not that I am going to shoot someone, but rather a vehicular accident can happen.

We can mitigate the risks associated with being on a live range. Range officers are supposed to be part of that. Not being in front of anyone’s muzzle in a 180 degree arc is another way. With that being said, it’s a personal choice to place one’s self in that position when alternatives exist and it’s not life or death.

Sorry Mr “I don’t like hate mail” you deserve every loss of revenue you receive.

Different schools have different way of training so it up to the student to pick the right one for their education.

High speed low drag live fire training:
http://rpginn.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=684&Itemid=39

While I accept that training on a 360 degree range has it’s purpose, the video showed a photographer taking pictures, and as far as I can tell, and from what the photographer has stated, that was the only purpose of being downrange. There was zero training value in the exercise, or at the very least no structured training taking place.

bottom line is, the risk was unnecessary. if you’re in a military or police training environment, stuff like that is probably a good idea because you have to be comfortable shooting around civilians as well as having rounds go past you. but dude, i’m not risking another hole in my head for a picture that i could’ve gotten with a tripod and a timer while i’m shooting with people from a tactical summer camp.

He’ll never see a dime from me or my family.

Yeager’s response tells you everything you need to know. He pulled out everything except the excuse that the sun is going to expand in 2.5 billion years and kill us all, so why bother being safe?

This guy is going to get someone killed at his school. He should NOT be training, period.