The Carolina Cup 2014

[orionz06]

If you have Facebook look up Gun Girl Bree. She has a video of that stage.

Saw it. That's about the only way I was imagining it to work out.

[cclaxton]

How did they set this up safely?

https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/1...59433547497522
https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/1...63246096811918
https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/1...63246096811918

Go up set loaded gun on mat. Then position head so top of head is on ground near gun looking downrange. On signal grab gun, shoot.
Bullet rotates opposite direction and grease rings were upside down.

Cody

[abu fitna]

HIPAA has a pretty narrow list of people that are covered under that law, there are few covered entities outside of people that are involved directly in the providing and billing of medical care.

Anyways as you noted it is pretty uncommon. USPSA dealt with it via a BOD meeting but only after the shooter had a seizure at a major match that resulted in him sweeping everyone on the stage. And from my understanding the response was to suspend the shooter until he could show proof that he could safely compete. But there is nothing written down so this information is third hand.

This is precisely why the matter at controversy appears to have arose - and I begin to see why some folks got more than a little upset. Vague handwaving about laws written to cover specific medical interactions between patients and providers have nothing to do with appropriate limitations on participating at sporting events for those that create risk exposure for others.

The response that one should not exclude participants is deeply unsatisfactory. This is a ball of suck either way for the unfortunate individual, but this is not about how folks feel.

I had a colleague face seizures from specific neurological damage, and while it was hard this was an immediate downselect from all armed activities in a professional setting where they were very important to the performance of the job (to put it mildly). The risk of ND during clonic muscle contractions was deemed simply unacceptable - given that some subjects in seizure have broken bones or otherwise stressed joints to the point of injury, a few pounds of pressure and an uncontrolled muzzle is a very real scenario. The risk was considered worse in this case as the effects of sustained, high pressure sound events from thousands of rounds sent downrange in often very close proximity to other shooters on the specific condition were entirely unknown). The standard by which medical clearance would then be needed to permit return to duty was based on documented control of condition over a specific period of time - and this was not going to be easy to meet at all. Last I knew, this was still disqualifying many years later.

This is not an idle conversation about a single case, and isn't something that is supposed to call out any named individual. This is something that has to be addressed appropriately - there are a lot of folks with TBI effects that need to be considered here. Excluding the wrong folks is bad, but creating conditions where real problems happen and folks start handwaving it away is not going to help.

In a sporting event, compliance is going to have to be mostly voluntary - but in documented cases, there is going to have to be some sort of response (and a policy framework to address future responses), or else there is the very good chance someone will incur a considerable amount of paperwork for an organization. It would not be a stretch to say that an negative event under such conditions may imperil the future status of a growing organization.

Now, I don't have a dog in the fight here - but I am for kittens sake sure that I would be unwilling to continue to shoot with or in the same bay as any individual with a known de-habilitating condition. And just saying that any MD - no matter how much I might personally respect them - has a history of carrying out safe events is not enough by itself.

[JM Campbell]

This is precisely why the matter at controversy appears to have arose - and I begin to see why some folks got more than a little upset. Vague handwaving about laws written to cover specific medical interactions between patients and providers have nothing to do with appropriate limitations on participating at sporting events for those that create risk exposure for others.

The response that one should not exclude participants is deeply unsatisfactory. This is a ball of suck either way for the unfortunate individual, but this is not about how folks feel.

I had a colleague face seizures from specific neurological damage, and while it was hard this was an immediate downselect from all armed activities in a professional setting where they were very important to the performance of the job (to put it mildly). The risk of ND during clonic muscle contractions was deemed simply unacceptable - given that some subjects in seizure have broken bones or otherwise stressed joints to the point of injury, a few pounds of pressure and an uncontrolled muzzle is a very real scenario. The risk was considered worse in this case as the effects of sustained, high pressure sound events from thousands of rounds sent downrange in often very close proximity to other shooters on the specific condition were entirely unknown). The standard by which medical clearance would then be needed to permit return to duty was based on documented control of condition over a specific period of time - and this was not going to be easy to meet at all. Last I knew, this was still disqualifying many years later.

This is not an idle conversation about a single case, and isn't something that is supposed to call out any named individual. This is something that has to be addressed appropriately - there are a lot of folks with TBI effects that need to be considered here. Excluding the wrong folks is bad, but creating conditions where real problems happen and folks start handwaving it away is not going to help.

In a sporting event, compliance is going to have to be mostly voluntary - but in documented cases, there is going to have to be some sort of response (and a policy framework to address future responses), or else there is the very good chance someone will incur a considerable amount of paperwork for an organization. It would not be a stretch to say that an negative event under such conditions may imperil the future status of a growing organization.

Now, I don't have a dog in the fight here - but I am for kittens sake sure that I would be unwilling to continue to shoot with or in the same bay as any individual with a known de-habilitating condition. And just saying that any MD - no matter how much I might personally respect them - has a history of carrying out safe events is not enough by itself.

More eloquently said than me. I agree with your statement above 100%.

I guess I'm more of a neanderthal in the typing and conveying my thoughts. Thank you for saying what I was trying to.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[jetfire]

Does anyone have a link to the posted scores?

[cclaxton]

As of this hour not posted officially. There might be some cell phone pics around, but I couldn't find them.
Cody

[NEPAKevin]

Last year, they were posted on the cup's home page either Monday or Tuesday after the match. http://the-carolinacup.com

[KeeFus]

Does anyone have a link to the posted scores?

Results: http://www.the-carolinacup.com/results/2014/Results.pdf

[jetfire]

Results: http://www.the-carolinacup.com/results/2014/Results.pdf

Thanks!

Man, that was not a very deep field this year.

[BN]

Thanks!

Man, that was not a very deep field this year.

No SSR Masters!!! Most years there are a half dozen.