PDA

View Full Version : Words cannot express the stupidity!! *Must Watch Video*



gtmtnbiker98
05-12-2011, 06:28 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdRlG4Vs0pU

Josh Runkle
05-12-2011, 06:59 AM
Idiots. Also, I couldn't help but notice how low his drop-leg holster was, meaning, he's probably never run with it, and the uniforms are probably not real.

Tamara
05-12-2011, 07:47 AM
I'm not clear just what this particular evolution is intended to accomplish...

Prdator
05-12-2011, 07:52 AM
Well the muzzle control was very bad!! but you got to give it to him he did a "Ninja load" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8475ocNvzw

TCinVA
05-12-2011, 08:05 AM
Ah, youtube...cataloging the worst human impulses for convenient access.

Occam's Razor
05-12-2011, 12:02 PM
“Computers have enabled people to make more mistakes faster than almost any invention in history, with the possible exception of tequila and hand guns

Tamara
05-12-2011, 12:26 PM
...I mean, they're not even wearing eye protection! :confused:

Kyle Reese
05-12-2011, 12:27 PM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3405/3258738570_bb84a3d88a.jpg

SmokeJumper
05-12-2011, 12:31 PM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3405/3258738570_bb84a3d88a.jpg

This!

agent-smith
05-12-2011, 12:36 PM
When did LittleLebowski learn to speak Russian?

JodyH
05-12-2011, 12:39 PM
Not condoning the video in any way whatsoever (these two guys look like assclowns), but in the interest of starting a discussion:
What cardinal safety rules were violated in this drill?
If none of the 4 rules were violated what makes this unsafe?
Just because a drill compresses the margin of error to a level you aren't comfortable with does that mean it's "stupidity"?
I see a lot of confusion over the difference between arbitrary range rules and the 4 cardinal safety rules.
If you've ever taken an advanced firearms class I'm sure you've violated every range rule known to Fudd, yet never once deliberately violated a cardinal rule.
So if the threshold for "stupidity" is violating a typical range rule yet not violating a cardinal rule... I'm guessing we're all stupid to some degree or another.

Kyle Reese
05-12-2011, 12:44 PM
What happens if one of these fine gentlemen has a moment of cerebral flatulence and fires a round into the shooter standing downrange? Too many things have the very real potential to go wrong here. The only thing "advanced" about these two appears to be the level of stupidity they are willing to broadcast over You-Boob.



Not condoning the video in any way whatsoever (these two guys look like assclowns), but in the interest of starting a discussion:
What cardinal safety rules were violated in this drill?
If none of the 4 rules were violated what makes this unsafe?
Just because a drill compresses the margin of error to a level you aren't comfortable with does that mean it's "stupidity"?
I see a lot of confusion over the difference between arbitrary range rules and the 4 cardinal safety rules.
If you've ever taken an advanced firearms class I'm sure you've violated every range rule known to Fudd, yet never once deliberately violated a cardinal rule.
So if the threshold for "stupidity" is violating a typical range rule yet not violating a cardinal rule... I'm guessing we're all stupid to some degree or another.

Tamara
05-12-2011, 12:55 PM
What cardinal rules were violated? Even dispensing with the whole "William Tell" schtick, camo dude flagged the hell out of the cameraman and couldn't keep his finger off the trigger for more than a second or two at a stretch...

rsa-otc
05-12-2011, 12:56 PM
Not condoning the video in any way whatsoever (these two guys look like assclowns), but in the interest of starting a discussion:
What cardinal safety rules were violated in this drill?
If none of the 4 rules were violated what makes this unsafe?
Just because a drill compresses the margin of error to a level you aren't comfortable with does that mean it's "stupidity"?
I see a lot of confusion over the difference between arbitrary range rules and the 4 cardinal safety rules.
If you've ever taken an advanced firearms class I'm sure you've violated every range rule known to Fudd, yet never once deliberately violated a cardinal rule.
So if the threshold for "stupidity" is violating a typical range rule yet not violating a cardinal rule... I'm guessing we're all stupid to some degree or another.

How about 1:39 in when the cameraman ends up looking down assclown #1's barrel. While I can't prove it, the clown in black looks like he does sweep camo clown when he draws his gun and is preparing to shoot.

Tamara
05-12-2011, 01:01 PM
I will admit to thinking that the guy in black showed moderately more sense while downrange. After all, he stood to the left of the target and his camo-wearing buddy was a southpaw, so he was definitely playing the odds better...

LittleLebowski
05-12-2011, 01:22 PM
Not condoning the video in any way whatsoever (these two guys look like assclowns), but in the interest of starting a discussion:
What cardinal safety rules were violated in this drill?
If none of the 4 rules were violated what makes this unsafe?
Just because a drill compresses the margin of error to a level you aren't comfortable with does that mean it's "stupidity"?
I see a lot of confusion over the difference between arbitrary range rules and the 4 cardinal safety rules.
If you've ever taken an advanced firearms class I'm sure you've violated every range rule known to Fudd, yet never once deliberately violated a cardinal rule.
So if the threshold for "stupidity" is violating a typical range rule yet not violating a cardinal rule... I'm guessing we're all stupid to some degree or another.

The point is, what's the point in breaking the rules and endangering yourself with no training benefits?

Speaking as someone who has been shot out of someone else's stupidity, I don't see how anyone can condone this moronic crap. Maybe it doesn't violate a cardinal rule but it is nonetheless dangerous, stupid, unnecessary, and it makes gun owners look idiotic.

JodyH
05-12-2011, 01:46 PM
Set aside the two men in this particular video and focus strictly on the drill.
What cardinal rule is violated by standing immediately to the side of a target?


double-Tapatalk

JodyH
05-12-2011, 01:52 PM
Maybe it doesn't violate a cardinal rule but it is nonetheless dangerous, stupid, unnecessary, and it makes gun owners look idiotic.
Have you ever done Hackathorn's snake drill?
Is it dangerous, stupid, unnecessary and make gun owners look stupid?
I've had silhouette competitors claim IPSC is dangerous and unsafe.


double-Tapatalk

Josh Runkle
05-12-2011, 02:29 PM
Not condoning the video in any way whatsoever (these two guys look like assclowns), but in the interest of starting a discussion:
What cardinal safety rules were violated in this drill?
If none of the 4 rules were violated what makes this unsafe?
Just because a drill compresses the margin of error to a level you aren't comfortable with does that mean it's "stupidity"?
I see a lot of confusion over the difference between arbitrary range rules and the 4 cardinal safety rules.
If you've ever taken an advanced firearms class I'm sure you've violated every range rule known to Fudd, yet never once deliberately violated a cardinal rule.
So if the threshold for "stupidity" is violating a typical range rule yet not violating a cardinal rule... I'm guessing we're all stupid to some degree or another.

An unspoken but cardinal rule in firearms training is risk/benefit.

We teach an immediate tap/rack with a malfunction because the benefit to training is much higher than the risk of injury from a potential hangfire, which, although possible, is a statistical anomaly.

I can't see what the benefit compared to the risk of this sort of training is.

JodyH
05-12-2011, 03:01 PM
I can't see what the benefit compared to the risk of this sort of training is.
But just because you don't see the point, does that make it unsafe or stupid?
I could go onto a trap shooters forum and post a video of a Todd Green appendix carry workshop and i'd have the majority saying it was unsafe and stupid behavior.

double-Tapatalk

agent-smith
05-12-2011, 03:09 PM
What cardinal rule is violated by standing immediately to the side of a target?

I'd say it violates the most important "cardinal" rule of all: "Don't do stupid s**t with guns"

LittleLebowski
05-12-2011, 03:10 PM
I'd say it violates the most important "cardinal" rule of all: "Don't do stupid s**t with guns"

That sums it up for me.

DannyZRC
05-12-2011, 03:36 PM
Jody, your moral relativism is showing.

Tamara
05-12-2011, 03:41 PM
Y'know, I went out on the front porch to smoke a cigarette or two and read a couple chapters and thought "Somebody's gonna bring up the 'Snake Drill'..." It's good to see that my psychic powers are still strong. ;)

Look, I get wrapped around the axle whenever anybody goes and tries to re-write The Four Rules (or The Cardinal Rules, or whatever) as much as anybody, but still, there are unspoken rules that go along with them.


Don't Try And Catch A Dropped Gun
Stop Finger-Fucking Loaded Guns In The Name Of "Safety"
A Really Good Way To Avoid Getting Your Ass Shot Is To Remember That Guns Have A Right End And A Wrong End And To Try And Spend As Much Of Your Life On The Right End As Possible Unless You Have A Damned Good Reason And You're In A Highly-Controlled Environment With 911 On Speed Dial.


Now, I can look at this video and tell you which of those "extra" rules it violated without even having to try hard.


ETA: But to address the "cardinal rules" issue, you'll notice that both of our Crash Test Dummies draped their arms over the top of the target. I don't care if both these guys had the recoil management skills of Dave Sevigny: The fact is that they muzzled that arm before the sights dropped back down on the bull.

JodyH
05-12-2011, 03:47 PM
I'd say it violates the most important "cardinal" rule of all: "Don't do stupid s**t with guns"
Yet who's definition of "stupid shit" are we going to use?

Again, I'm not discussing this video in a literal sense.
I'm using it as a launching pad for discussion about training in general and where is the line between hard training and "stupid shit" if neither breaks the cardinal safety rules?

LittleLebowski
05-12-2011, 03:50 PM
Yet who's definition of "stupid shit" are we going to use?

I like this one for starters.


A Really Good Way To Avoid Getting Your Ass Shot Is To Remember That Guns Have A Right End And A Wrong End And To Try And Spend As Much Of Your Life On The Right End As Possible Unless You Have A Damned Good Reason And You're In A Highly-Controlled Environment With 911 On Speed Dial.

JodyH
05-12-2011, 03:57 PM
Jody, your moral relativism is showing.
What's the cut off line?
If you're standing 10' to the left and 2' uprange of the target is that safe?
What about 5' directly left?
3'?
1'?

JodyH
05-12-2011, 03:59 PM
I like this one for starters.
So, you've never done shooting while advancing and retreating where some people moved a little faster/slower?
If so, was that dangerous and stupid?
After all someone was on the wrong end of the muzzle.

Tamara
05-12-2011, 04:12 PM
So, you've never done shooting while advancing and retreating where some people moved a little faster/slower?
Given the realities of the "wobble zone" that I'm sure everyone here understands, you don't see even a slight difference between maybe being a foot or two ahead of the muzzle of someone standing six feet to your left or right and actually draping yourself across the target?

We're getting into the classic description of pornography here: "Don't ask me to define it, but I know it when I see it."

VolGrad
05-12-2011, 04:19 PM
You guys are missing the entire point. It's OK what these guys are doing ..... because they are clearly ninjas, duh. :cool:

TCinVA
05-12-2011, 04:26 PM
I'm unconcerned with what skeet shooters think of Todd's method of carry. The fact remains that there are lines...and standing right beside the target crosses them in every objective sense.

What is being modeled in the video is simply reckless behavior.

jslaker
05-12-2011, 04:43 PM
This video is in the same league as the video of a James Yeager (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=20e_1292474614) class with a photographer on the muzzle side of the line literally between two students' targets. Mr. Yeager responded (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/19/james-yeager-responds-to-the-controversial-training-video/) in typical fashion defending the action with:

"Safety is this unattainable thing. True safety doesn't exist. That's not just from a philosophical standpoint; it's a scientific fact."

File under instructors I'm not interested in training with.

Tamara
05-12-2011, 04:45 PM
I'm unconcerned with what skeet shooters think of Todd's method of carry. The fact remains that there are lines...and standing right beside the target crosses them in every objective sense.

Quoted For Truth.

Look, from my point of view, all the talk about "Okay, Then How Many Feet Away From The Target Is Okay?" misses the point, in that there's stuff I'll tolerate on a range full of strangers of unknown abilities, and then there's stuff I'll tolerate on a closely supervised range with carefully vetted shooters, and then there's stuff that will have me calling "PLEASE CEASE FIRE UNTIL I CAN PACK MY RANGE BAG AND LEAVE!"

Your thresholds may be different than mine, but for me, this clearly falls in the third category.

I'm not standing next to the target no matter who is shooting because there's no need for me to be standing next to the target.

gtmtnbiker98
05-12-2011, 04:47 PM
So, you've never done shooting while advancing and retreating where some people moved a little faster/slower?
If so, was that dangerous and stupid?
After all someone was on the wrong end of the muzzle.But, doing it on ACCIDENT and knowingly doing it are two different things.

Ed L
05-12-2011, 04:49 PM
1. WIth Hackathorn's snakedrill you do not have students standing next to the target that is being shot.

2. As far as which of the 4 laws of firearms handling is being broken, if you look at the place where the laws of gunhandling were distilled down to 4 basic rules, you will see no one standing alongside the target while someone else shot at it.

Joe in PNG
05-12-2011, 04:58 PM
And the question may be asked- WHY, exactly, does one need to stand right next to the target? Just what skill does one learn by doing that?

JodyH
05-12-2011, 05:05 PM
"Don't ask me to define it, but I know it when I see it." One persons pornography is another persons artistic expression.

If this had of been a video of SEAL team 6 doing the exact same drill in preparation of assaulting Osama's hideout would people still be calling it dangerous stupidity?
:confused:

JodyH
05-12-2011, 05:08 PM
2. As far as which of the 4 laws of firearms handling is being broken, if you look at the place where the laws of gunhandling were distilled down to 4 basic rules, you will see no one standing alongside the target while someone else shot at it.
Yet exactly which law is being broken?
Why isn't there a 5th rule stating it's unsafe to point your firearm within "X"-degrees of a non-target?

JodyH
05-12-2011, 05:10 PM
The fact remains that there are lines...and standing right beside the target crosses them in every objective sense.
Yet WHO get's to make the decision as to where that line is drawn?

Kyle Reese
05-12-2011, 05:35 PM
One persons pornography is another persons artistic expression.

If this had of been a video of SEAL team 6 doing the exact same drill in preparation of assaulting Osama's hideout would people still be calling it dangerous stupidity?
:confused:

For the sake of arguement:

You're comparing a bunch of no talent assclowns to guys that do CQB for a living. One serves a useful purpose, another only illustrates that Darwin is indeed alive and well, and getting his jollies from You-Boob.

Context is everything.

Tamara
05-12-2011, 05:38 PM
One persons pornography is another persons artistic expression.

If this had of been a video of SEAL team 6 doing the exact same drill in preparation of assaulting Osama's hideout would people still be calling it dangerous stupidity?
:confused:
I'm pretty sure everyone here has stated that one of the biggest reasons this is idiotic is because there is no reason for it. He wants to demonstrate how much he trusts his buddy? Then let him loan him a thousand Lira.

These guys aren't DEVGRU. Nor am I.

Let me make this absolutely clear: I would not stand next to the target for Larry frickin' Vickers because there's no good reason for me to risk my ass like that. If someone else wants to, that's up to them, but I might point and laugh if I think they're being dumb.

It's the difference between Valentino Rossi dragging a knee in heavy traffic in a MotoGP race and J. Random Assclown on YouTube doing it on a public road.

So, whose judgment, you ask? Mine. It's the only judgment I have and, you know, so far, so good.

Ed L
05-12-2011, 05:54 PM
Yet exactly which law is being broken?
Why isn't there a 5th rule stating it's unsafe to point your firearm within "X"-degrees of a non-target?

Because they didn't think anyone would be foolish enough to stand next to a target while someone is shooting at it, or someone would be foolish enough to shoot at a target while someone else is standing next to it.

Go try doing this at the place where these laws were first condensed down to 4 laws and see how long they let you stay.

ubervic
05-12-2011, 05:56 PM
Ah, youtube...cataloging the worst human impulses for convenient access.


THIS!

Ed L
05-12-2011, 06:00 PM
If this had of been a video of SEAL team 6 doing the exact same drill in preparation of assaulting Osama's hideout would people still be calling it dangerous stupidity?
:confused:

The people involved in the video linked are NOT SEAL Team 6, nor were the other people who had the video of the photographer in between targets. The shooter had not been through 1/100th the level of selection and training as SEAL or whatever.

LittleLebowski
05-12-2011, 06:58 PM
One persons pornography is another persons artistic expression.

If this had of been a video of SEAL team 6 doing the exact same drill in preparation of assaulting Osama's hideout would people still be calling it dangerous stupidity?
:confused:

Is there a point to playing the devil's advocate here or are you just enjoying it? Would you do this drill?

JodyH
05-12-2011, 08:20 PM
Not really playing devils advocate.
My point is this.
The four cardinal safe gunhandling rules prevent accidents. If all four rules are followed there is no possibility of an accident with tragic consequences (if all four rules are followed, even a mechanical malfunction AD would go in a safe direction).
There is the possibility of a four rules violation happening in every single firearms related drill because we are fallible humans.
That being established:
Objectively any drill that does not have the shooter breaking any of the four rules is a safe drill.
Since the possibility of a rules violation exists, the margin of error a person is comfortable with is entirely subjective based on the perceived risk to benefit ratio of the drill being conducted.

That's my point.
:cool:

JodyH
05-12-2011, 08:23 PM
Would you do this drill?
If someone was to convince me that the benefit of a drill such as this outweighed the risks associated I would do something similar to this drill.
btw: holstering up AIWB deliberately violates one of the four cardinal rules yet most of us consider the benefits to outweigh the risks and do it dozens of times every range session.
You could honestly, academically say that holstering up AIWB is a riskier manipulation than shooting at a target 7 yards away with another person standing 2' to the side of it (factoring in the average skill level of the people posting in this thread).

Tamara
05-12-2011, 08:39 PM
Y'know, I'm totally burned out on generic shooting websites because somebody's always telling me about how their buddy's Glock .40 went 200,000+ rounds without any parts breakage (http://thesilicongraybeard.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-on-that-unanswerable-question.html?showComment=1305171070383#c201628726 4956345907).

Similarly, I'm rapidly becoming burned out on "advanced" shooting forums because somebody on there has heard that SFOD-Delta does some particular shooting drill and therefore it's completely appropriate for my local self-training group to "sit as hostages" too when we go play at the range every Saturday.

This makes me sad. :(


You could honestly, academically say that holstering up AIWB is a riskier manipulation than shooting at a target 7 yards away with another person standing 2' to the side of it (factoring in the average skill level of the people posting in this thread).

Honestly and academically, you're completely right, and you know what? I think Todd's a great guy and maybe the best instructor I've had in my limited experience, but before I saw him handling the 2 guys using AIWB at the Indy AFHF course last October, I was completely and totally ready to walk off that range, because I don't want to be there when some Counterstrike Kiddie puts a Gold Dot through his femoral artery.

TCinVA
05-12-2011, 08:43 PM
Yet WHO get's to make the decision as to where that line is drawn?

I think those of us who have done enough of this training thing are plenty capable of figuring out that practices which may be used under tightly controlled circumstances by professional warriors who dedicate practically every waking moment to training...and yet even then not without casualties...are not a good idea for average joe (meaning people without that mission and level of preparation) to incompetently imitate.

There are degrees of risk on the range. Standing by the target while some yahoo is actually shooting at it is several orders of magnitude more dangerous than not having living, breathing, bleeding no-shoots by the target. Yes, firearms training is inherently risky...but that doesn't mean that when we walk on the range there are no longer degrees of risk or that we have to suspend critical thinking about the relevance of what is happening on the range and whether or not the risk/reward calculation makes any sense.

Lots of people like to speculate on what they think elite units and experienced instructors do, but frankly there aren't many people who have access to the training syllabus for those units and instructors, or exactly how much care and consideration they put into structuring what they do. With experienced professionals overseeing the training and with the best trauma medics and tools on standby, and with stringent selection processes and preparation that precede the moment where one of the members of those units takes a shot in a shoothouse, they still end up with people killed and injured.

This makes it a spectacularly stupid idea for those without those levels of experience and preparation to imitate.



You could honestly, academically say that holstering up AIWB is a riskier manipulation than shooting at a target 7 yards away with another person standing 2' to the side of it (factoring in the average skill level of the people posting in this thread).

Ummm....no, dude. You can't. You cannot argue that reholstering a pistol in a deliberate fashion is somehow riskier than actually standing beside a target with bullets being launched in the general direction.

This isn't the first time this issue has come up. Paul Howe wrote a sufficient rebuttal to much of the nonsense surrounding that episode.

JV_
05-12-2011, 08:46 PM
This makes it a spectacularly stupid idea for those without those levels of experience and preparation to imitate.

Your post is spot on.

JodyH
05-12-2011, 09:11 PM
You cannot argue that reholstering a pistol in a deliberate fashion is somehow riskier than actually standing beside a target with bullets being launched in the general direction.
Why did you use "deliberate fashion" for the re-holster and "launched in the general direction" for the shooting?
Why not deliberate fashion for both scenarios?

Reholstering AIWB is a deliberate violation of a cardinal safety rule.
There is ZERO margin for error once one rule has been violated.

Some people might "launch bullets in the general direction" of the target, but I haven't missed a deliberate slow fire shot at 7 yards by more than 2" in several years.
Since no safety rules are being deliberately violated, an accident would require two things to happen. First I would have to have to break two of the four rules. Then, at the exact moment I was violating multiple rules I would have to miss my target by a factor of 10x the worst miss I've had in years.

So yea... I will say reholstering AIWB is riskier proposition for me.

Kyle Reese
05-12-2011, 09:13 PM
Reholstering AIWB is a deliberate violation of a cardinal safety rule.
there is ZERO margin for error once one rule has been violated.

Some people might "launch bullets in the general direction" of the target, but I haven't missed a deliberate slow fire shot at 7 yards by more than 2" in several years.
Since no safety rules are being deliberately violated, an accident would require two things to happen. First I would have to have to break two of the four rules. Then, at the exact moment I was violating multiple rules I would have to miss my target by a factor of 10x the worst miss I've had in years.

So yea... I will say reholstering AIWB is riskier proposition for me.

Would you try the aforementioned drill with a randomly selected person at a public range?

JodyH
05-12-2011, 09:17 PM
Would you try the aforementioned drill with a randomly selected person at a public range?
As I posted previously:
"Since the possibility of a rules violation exists, the margin of error a person is comfortable with is entirely subjective based on the perceived risk to benefit ratio of the drill being conducted."

Dude, there are people at the public range that I 'm not comfortable standing behind, much less in front of.
No where in this thread have I advocated performing this drill.
I've simply stated that the drill itself is not inherently unsafe.
I'd be 100% comfortable letting me shoot within 1' of myself at 7 yards.

Tamara
05-12-2011, 09:30 PM
I'd be 100% comfortable letting me shoot within 1' of myself at 7 yards.

Dude, I can't tell you how much I envy you that confidence. And I am completely not being facetious here.

Ed L
05-12-2011, 10:15 PM
I've trained with 3 veterans of that certain US unit, along with trainers who have seen combat with the Australian SAS, British Special Boat Service, USMC, etc, and am familiar with the training courses offered by countless veterans of various elite units.

None of them have students shoot at targets while other students stand alongside them.

Kinda tells you something.

I don't know of any driving schools that has its students slalom around each other--even though I doubt there is any caution against this in any state's driving manual.

John Ralston
05-12-2011, 11:01 PM
I have a good friend who has the opportunity to shoot with some of the best on a regular basis - Jeff Gonzalez, Larry Vickers and his good friend Robby Leatham (almost weekly). This topic came up (not this exact example), and he put it to me this way:

"Everybody misses...I have seen Rob Leatham miss...no way in hell would I stand next to a target"

I think that about sums it up.

JDM
05-12-2011, 11:04 PM
Good shots, bad shots, cardinal rules, additional rules, who's shooting, who's making the rules- none of this really matters.

Why the fuck would you do this? To what possible end? What conceivable benefit could this "drill" and I hesitate to call it that, provide?

"let's see who can pull the fewest slow fire shots at 8 yards while wearing ski masks, and costumes from 'behind enemy lines'" "Yeah!!!! Even better, let's stand next to the target."

^^^^Yeah, these are they guys I want to hang out with.

agent-smith
05-12-2011, 11:06 PM
"let's see who can pull the fewest slow fire shots at 8 yards while wearing ski masks, and costumes from 'behind enemy lines'" "Yeah!!!!"

I don't really have any problems with that part...

Joe in PNG
05-12-2011, 11:15 PM
Why the fuck would you do this? To what possible end? What conceivable benefit could this "drill" and I hesitate to call it that, provide?



It's pure, macho nonsense. The kind of thing where immature people do stupid and dangerous things to show how tough and brave they are. Often they make the world (or at least the gene pool) a better place by doing so. And for more examples of this kind of winning behavior, go check out the Darwin awards.

Slavex
05-12-2011, 11:29 PM
I don't know of any driving schools that has its students slalom around each other--even though I doubt there is any caution against this in any state's driving manual.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ48NQjouoE

TCinVA
05-13-2011, 06:49 AM
Why did you use "deliberate fashion" for the re-holster and "launched in the general direction" for the shooting?
Why not deliberate fashion for both scenarios?


Because I don't know of any human being on the planet who has the ability to accurately predict what a bullet is going to do 100% of the time once it's left the barrel or who has the power to do anything about the path of the bullet once it has left the barrel. Even the most dialed in shooter in the world who can literally cut the center of the X out of the target with every single shot cannot completely guarantee where the bullet he fires through that target is going to end up.

That is one reason why having someone by the target is several orders of magnitude more dangerous than just about anything else you can possibly do on the range.



Reholstering AIWB is a deliberate violation of a cardinal safety rule.


No, it's not. The proper technique for putting the weapon back into the holster involves pushing your hips out so that the muzzle doesn't point at your lower extremities. You're also angling the grip of the weapon into the body as much as possible to angle the muzzle out as much as possible. With the proper reholstering technique if the weapon goes off then you end up with a hole in the front of your pants and possibly some powder burn...but not a bullet hole in anything important.

Reholstering incompetently in practically every concealment holster on the market will result in a gunshot wound if it all goes wrong.

...and yet despite that, how many people are killed every year reholstering? Even though most do it incompetently with no consideration for the risks, the number of deaths and serious injuries from it are exceedingly tiny. Now when we contrast that with the casualty rate of elite military units who have people downrange under stringently controlled circumstances with experienced instructors and carefully selected personnel and we notice that they still have casualties it becomes rather silly to argue that being in the same general area as a bullet's intended resting place is no more dangerous than reholstering.

Jody, you seem like a nice guy and you make some good contributions on the site, but you are out in left field on this one. Way out there.

rsa-otc
05-13-2011, 08:20 AM
In the elite military units casualties happen. When they do an investigation is initiated and in many cases people's careers end. So I wouldn't say they are acceptable even to those folks. As mentioned before the risk reward fact is considerably different for the military than it is for the civilian population.

In the civilian environment training casualties are not acceptable. They happen yes but we do everything to possibly prevent them. This kind of training would be considered wantonly reckless in any controled civilian venue, as mentioned even among the elite trainers, let alone anyone else.

2 bozo's dressing up and playing army in the woods with live ammo strikes me as light years worse.

Josh Runkle
05-13-2011, 08:45 AM
One persons pornography is another persons artistic expression.

If this had of been a video of SEAL team 6 doing the exact same drill in preparation of assaulting Osama's hideout would people still be calling it dangerous stupidity?
:confused:

Yes and no.

Again, I go back to Risk/Benefit. The risk still outweighs the benefit in the scenario with UBL, because there's no perceived penalty for a miss during the UBL raid, and no point to prove your belief in your team-mates ability to not miss.

Now, being ludicrous for a moment: if you're forming a new team of people who have never worked together, and they are about to breech into a room filled with explosives where a national icon, like the president's daughter is being held, the perceived penalty for a miss is outrageously high. If that new team of people who have never worked together before is having a "tryout" for the Sec Def after days of practice, and you're trying to prove that each new team member believes in every new team member's ability to not-miss, the penalty of death of one of those team members would still be better than having a miss and lose the president's daughter.

So, while it might make a good Steven Segul movie, the chances of having something with such ridiculously high stakes and people who have never worked together is almost nil.

In that incredibly ludicrous scenario, I would say that the risk/benefit ratio would allow for standing next to a target, but would never apply to HRT or DEVGRU. Put $20 bills around the target, or make people who miss buy the first round, but the risk/benefit just does not add up to stand next to a target.

Oh, and here's another cardinal rule: Assume everyone who has a gun at the range is an idiot until they prove otherwise.

LittleLebowski
05-13-2011, 09:07 AM
Yes, perfect safety is unobtainable. But common sense and a sensible risk/benefits ratio is.

I don't see the point you're trying to argue at this point, Jody.

ToddG
05-13-2011, 09:09 AM
Not condoning the video in any way whatsoever (these two guys look like assclowns), but in the interest of starting a discussion:
What cardinal safety rules were violated in this drill?
If none of the 4 rules were violated what makes this unsafe?
Just because a drill compresses the margin of error to a level you aren't comfortable with does that mean it's "stupidity"?

Having just read through the entire thread to this point, it seems to me that a lot of folks are missing Jody's point, or at least what I think his point is.

Right off the bat he stated:

He was not condoning the actions in the video in question.
The two guys in this video are assclowns.


Then a bunch of folks said "Regardless of who does it, it's wrong." This was then modified over time to "It's wrong unless HSLD people do it." I would submit that once you've reached the point of saying it's okay for HSLD people to do it as part of a well thought out training program, you've conceded Jody's point to a certain extent.

Would I ever do a drill like that with students? Absolutely not. And I would venture to say that a significant number of the teams/units that employ such drills probably aren't nearly as prepared as they think they are.

I also think the "Even Rob Leatham misses" argument is off the mark. Rob Leatham might miss when he's got a berm behind the target and he's trying to win a competition by being the fastest. If you told Rob that he had to pay $1,000 for every point down, how many points down do you think he'd have? Zero.

Were these two guys stupid? Yes. Does the potential disaster factor outweigh any perceived benefit for most people? Yes. But are there a lot of things that we, the members of this forum, do on the range that others look at and think are just as dangerous? Yes.

If you've ever been on a range where participants were allowed 360 degree movement with their weapons drawn, you've been "downrange."

JodyH
05-13-2011, 10:49 AM
Maybe someday I can be as articulate as ToddG.

double-Tapatalk

JDM
05-13-2011, 11:10 AM
Maybe someday I can be as articulate as ToddG.

double-Tapatalk

This.

MechEng
05-13-2011, 11:18 AM
Jody,

So the point of this drill is to “Build Trust”. What kind of Trust are you talking about here? Trust that your buddy’s marksmanship skills are up to par? …so he can shoot a threat that happens to be standing next to you? You don’t have to stand next to HIS target to build this kind of trust, just stand next to HIM and watch him shoot. Standing next to the target has no training value and is pointless.

TCinVA
05-13-2011, 11:36 AM
There's undoubtedly a time and place for "downrange" training and I don't want anyone to come away thinking that I'm summarily dismissing it as a concept. Even when done under the right circumstances, though, it still poses significant risk and is therefore a bad idea to imitate incompetently.

The video originally presented is a good example of incompetent imitation. There have been other examples in the past, and there will doubtless be more in the future. The genuine article doesn't end up on youtube.

agent-smith
05-13-2011, 11:50 AM
...If you've ever been on a range where participants were allowed 360 degree movement with their weapons drawn, you've been "downrange."

Well, yeah...but I was wearing my Oakleys, which provide Thermonuclear Protection...surprised you didn't know that.

(I'm retarded)

SteveK
05-13-2011, 01:13 PM
Have you ever done Hackathorn's snake drill?
Is it dangerous, stupid, unnecessary and make gun owners look stupid?
I've had silhouette competitors claim IPSC is dangerous and unsafe.


double-Tapatalk

As a member of a response team that trains under Ken's supervison on a continuous basis, I have to say that the snake drill re-enforces awareness and strengthens techniques and confidence we need to work in the situations that we do. I don't want to be working at fast paces in close quarters with weapons draw with my buddies and suddenly have this new ass-puckering feeling to distract me. Training like this is definitely NOT for everyone, but does have it's merits for some. I think each individual has to assess what they need from training and tailor their cirriculum to their specific needs.

ToddG
05-13-2011, 01:16 PM
Even when done under the right circumstances, though, it still poses significant risk and is therefore a bad idea to imitate incompetently.

Exactly. What is the reward versus the risk? For almost every calculation the risk far outweighs any perceived benefit.

Jody asked which rule was violated, and a lot of folks said "it was one of them thar other rules." But that's not the point at all. It's not as black and white as "Name The Rule." The issue with this kind of activity is that the margin of error gets cut thin.

If you're on a square range and everyone is in line, can you still get shot if someone screws up and breaks the 180? Yes.

If you're on a range where someone only needs to break the 90-degree arc in front of him to muzzle you, the margin of error has shrunk and the level of competency and attention required on the part of the gun handler goes way up.

Now put someone one foot from a target seven yards away and you're down to about a 5-degree arc... move five degrees to the wrong side of the target and you're pointing a gun at a person. That is what makes these kinds of exercises dangerous. If everything goes right, it's fine. You could say the same thing about swimming naked with hungry sharks.




Well, yeah...but I was wearing my Oakleys, which provide Thermonuclear Protection...surprised you didn't know that.

I wear Rudy Project. They make me smart enough to avoid standing where I need Thermonuclear Protection in the first place. :cool:

agent-smith
05-13-2011, 01:25 PM
I wear Rudy Project. They make me smart enough to avoid standing where I need Thermonuclear Protection in the first place. :cool:

The Master has spoken... :)